Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

As amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Nurses (Pay-as-you-eat Scheme)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the meals supplied to hospital nurses are at standard charges and of standard quality and quantity throughout the country; and whether hot drinks of tea, coffee or milk are subject to additional charges.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): I have asked hospital authorities to ensure that meals are provided at the standard

charges and I rely on them to achieve the highest possible standards of quality and quantity. Some hospitals also provide alternative meals at charges determined locally. Beverages are subject to additional charges if not paid for as part of a basic meal, but the Whitley Council has now agreed that the cost of beverages supplied to resident nurses outside mealtimes should be regarded as covered by their existing annual lodging charge.

Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, acknowledged that there is a good deal of evidence that the charges and the quality and quantity of meals are not uniform throughout the country and meals are sometimes inadequate. Does he not think that the pay-as-you-eat scheme, not in principle but in practice, is often working out in a thoroughly unsatisfactory way having regard to the demanding nature of the nurses' work?

Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is something for which the nurses themselves have been asking, although it has worked out irregularly because of the variations in practice of the different areas. This is, I think, being averaged out, but there is still a good deal of dissatisfaction even in spite of that.

Dame Irene Ward: Bearing in mind that a little progress has been made, will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the next Whitley Council, which he says is to meet, will in fact meet? Further, I ask him again whether he will


give adequate instructions to the management side of the Whitley Council so that it may really deal with the question of nurses' pay, student nurses' pay and all the matters which are essential to the nursing profession?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for agreeing that some little advance has been made—

Dame Irene Ward: Very little.

Mr. Crossman: —some little advance on the beverages side. On the other other side, as she knows, the position is that the staff side rejected the offer and made a claim for an increase of £1 a week for younger students, pupils and nursing auxiliaries, or, alternatively, the issue of a free meal voucher for a main meal each day. That is now being considered. My Ministry is considering it very seriously indeed, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that the idea of my simply ordering all the authorities concerned to follow a certain line would not be in accord with the Whitley Council tradition.

Mr. Bishop: This is a most unsatisfactory "beverage report". Will my right hon. Friend take immediate action to give social justice to the nurses and avoid growing militancy?

Mr. Crossman: I am very anxious to get this settled, and I agree with my hon. Friend that more should be done. This is why I said that we were very seriously considering the staff side's demands.

Dame Irene Ward: When is the Council to meet?

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Are we not in danger of some confusion here about whether what is really wrong is that the charges for nurses' food are too high or the pay for nurses generally, and student nurses in particular, is too low? If the right hon. Gentleman is in such great difficulty, could he not, perhaps, ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of of State for Education and Science to put up the price of school meals and give him something to help him out?

Mr. Crossman: That is a suggestion which I am prepared to consider—coming, as it does, from that quarter.

New Hospital, Ilford (Site)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he has given to the Goodmayes Hospital site in deciding where the proposed new District General Hospital to serve the Ilford area should be built.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he had now considered the question of the allocation of a new district general hospital to the Ilford area; and if he will consider the Goodmayes Hospital site for this purpose.

Mr. Crossman: Development on the Goodmayes site is one of several possibilities under consideration.

Mr. Iremonger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the lines of communication with, and the sense of participation by, the general practitioners who are so vitally concerned in this area are totally inadequate? Would he arrange for the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) and myself to discuss with him this problem of the site?

Mr. Crossman: I should be delighted to do that. I was at Ilford the other day and I had a long discussion with members of the hospital management committee and the regional hospital board. If the general practitioners wish to make representations through their Members, I shall be delighted to hear them.

Mr. Shaw: May I ask my right hon. Friend to take the hon. Gentleman's request into consideration? Is he aware of the deep concern in Ilford about the future of the hospital services there?

Mr. Crossman: I was made aware of it during the afternoon that I spent there. I realise that there are major decisions to be taken, and I should like local community interests to be fully appreciated when they are taken.

Geriatric and Mental Health Cases (Beds)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of beds in National Health Service hospitals was occupied by geriatric


cases and mental health cases, respectively, in 1960, 1964 and 1968.

Mr. Crossman: With permission, I will circulate figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fortescue: I am not particularly grateful for the Answers which I am getting from the Secretary of State this afternoon. Will he confirm that a large proportion of beds in National Health Service hospitals are occupied by geriatric and mental patients, and say what his Department is doing to provide accommodation for such patients in other than ordinary hospitals, so that ordinary hospital beds may be occupied by people needing urgent treatment?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the figures bear out what the hon. Gentleman says. Between 1960 and 1968 there has been a decrease in mental illness beds of nearly 20 per cent. and a slight increase in geriatric beds of 1·6 per cent. This is very proper, since we need more geriatric beds and, because of the rapid turnover of mental patients, fewer mental illness beds, so the percentage is related to the need in that period.

Following are the figures:



Percentage of total available beds


Occupied by:
1960
1964
1968


Geriatric patients (including the chronic sick)
11·51
11·77
12·10


Mentally ill patients
31·52
28·32
26·22


Mentally subnormal and severely subnormal patients
12·05
12·34
12·69


All psychiatric patients
43·57
40·68
38·91

Hearing Aids (South Teesside)

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the waiting list for the fitting of bone conduction hearing aids in the area of the South Teesside Hospital Management Committee and the average length of time that patients have to wait before being supplied with these appliances.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): Twenty-nine patients for initial fitting and 48 for replacement aids. Three to four months.

Mr. Tinn: Although this is a welcome improvement on the position earlier this

year, many people are still having to wait an undesirable length of time. Will my hon. Friend continue to make every effort to ensure that the waiting period is further reduced?

Mr. Ennals: I will, indeed. In the last two months there has been a considerable improvement, partly because a new supplier has been found for a component which has caused particular difficulty. Pressure is being exerted on contractors to improve delivery, and we shall follow this very carefully.

Vehicles (Supply)

Mr. Tinn: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to improve the procedure for the delivery of centrally supplied vehicles ordered by hospital management committees through his Department in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Ennals: The procedure is being discussed with the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Tinn: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he look seriously into the complaints which I have sent to him about the length of time, sometimes more than 12 months, which hospital authorities have had to wait for vehicles, and the quality of workmanship of the vehicles when they are delivered?

Mr. Ennals: For most vehicles there are no delays, and there are few difficulties in meeting orders of hospital authorities for standard cars and commercial vehicles. The delay has been for specialised coaches and commercial vehicles. We are looking into the points which my hon. Friend has made, and I will give him as full an answer as I can.

General Practitioners

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will re-examine the rôle of the general practitioner in the hospital service;
(2) whether he will initiate proposals for the provision of additional hospital accommodation where the elderly sick can be treated under the care of their own family doctors.

Mr. Crossman: The rôle of the general practitioner in the hospital service has been expanding, especially in maternity work, and is now receiving consideration by a number of committees of the Central Health Services Council and of the Standing Advisory Committees. I will further study the position in the light of their reports.

Mr. Turton: Would not it be more efficient, humane and economical for the elderly sick to be cared for in small general practitioner hospitals, instead of in large, consultant-run hospitals far from the patients' homes, which results from the policy of closing small hospitals?

Mr. Crossman: It would be fair to say that the policy of regionalisation, with the big district hospital, is one which we inherited from our predecessors. I am looking at it with a critical eye because of various problems, but I have no doubt whatsoever that in terms of modern scientific advance and medical efficiency we must recognise that there are a large number of operations and treatments which must take place in that kind of hospital. The problem of geriatrics is a special one. I favour the idea of moving them out of the hospital service altogether, but that requires the local authority to have not only the will but the cash to do so.

Lord Balniel: Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is often false economy to close small hospitals, which can be used admirably by the general practitioner to care for elderly patients?

Mr. Crossman: I repeat, the closure of small hospitals did not start with this Government. I and my Minister of State personally, as did our predecessors, supervise each closure and look carefully at it, with a very sympathetic eye from this point of view.

Hospitals, Exmouth and Sidmouth (Improvement Projects)

Mr. Emery: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) why no capital expenditure was planned for 1968–69 and is planned for 1969–70 for extensions or improvement projects to Exmouth Hospital;
(2) why no capital expenditure was planned for 1968–69 and is planned for

1969–70 for extensions or improvement projects to the Victoria Cottage Hospital, Sidmouth, Devon.

Mr. Ennals: The South Western Regional Hospital Board did not accord the same priority to capital expenditure at these hospitals as to schemes included in its programme for 1968–69 and 1969–70.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that among doctors and many of the smaller hospitals in Devon, which are providing a massive service for the local population, there is the feeling that all expenditure is going into improvements in Reading—I am sorry, I should have said Exeter—and that if the small hospitals were to be closed down the extra numbers on the waiting lists of people wanting beds would be so great that it would be impossible to meet the demands?

Mr. Ennals: Obviously we cannot spend money on everything all at once, I am glad the hon. Gentleman has now remembered which constituency he represents. Capital expenditure is now being concentrated in Exeter, which is the district general hospital for the area, in which substantial sums have been spent—£160,000 in 1968–69, and £925,000 is expected to be spent this year on the new Wonford Hospital in Exeter, providing 446 beds. In addition £348,000 was spent in 1968–69, and £775,000 in 1969–70 on other schemes in the Exeter area.

Complaints (Commissioner)

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now establish a commissioner to investigate complaints by both staff and patients in the National Health Service.

Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 16th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 272.]

Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman press ahead as fast as possible and ensure that when a commissioner is set up he will be entirely independent of Ministers?

Mr. Crossman: I made it clear earlier that I am not pressing ahead as fast as possible with this because I first want to


establish the hospital advisory service under its director and see how far that meets one side of the problem, which is the need for somewhere to which members of the staff of the services can go with their complaints without fear of victimisation. I want to get that established. Both these proposals require very careful examination in view of the professional interest of doctors and nurses that their freedom should not be violated. I promise to consult them on both aspects.

Mr. Whitaker: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is need for a health ombudsman quite distinct from an inspectorate? Could he give a date for an announcement on this subject, in view of the fact that Scotland has had such a successful system operating in the mental health scheme for many years?

Mr. Crossman: We had this system, of course, in our mental health service for a good many years, but we got rid of it some time ago. We want to put in its place something better. I cannot give my hon. Friend a date because I want to get the hospital advisory service going and then to see how the commissioner fits in. I myself am convinced that there is a substantial case for a public health commissioner, but such an office should not be confused in its functions with the hospital advisory service and its inspectorate.

Financial Resources (Allocation)

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what parts of the National Health Service will be cut as a result of the reallocation of resources within the National Health Service to mental hospitals.

Mr. Crossman: In my recent discussions with chairmen of regional hospital Boards, I asked chairmen to report by July on the reconsideration of the distribution of revenue funds to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member on 12th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 972–4.]

Mr. Dean: In view of the urgent need for more money for mental hospitals and for nurses' pay and the like, does not the Minister think that it is absolute folly to raise £½ million more in health charges and then to hand it over to the education services?

Mr. Crossman: It would be folly if it was done. But any Minister who attempted to do this would be forbidden to do it by his Permanent Secretary. Therefore, I would advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe in something it is said I did.

Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that he gives the impression of somebody whose left hand does not know what his other left hand is doing? Are we to take it as a precedent that the National Health Service now has so much money that it can afford to give it to another Government Department?

Mr. Crossman: That would be a wrong conclusion to draw from my answer to Question No. 33.

Mental Hospitals (Old People)

Dame Joan Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of the fact that there are a number of old people in mental hospitals who have no need of this type of attention, what action he is taking together with the local authorities to provide more hostels in order to help to relieve the overcrowding in this type of hospital.

Mr. Crossman: I accept that there are old people at present in mental hospitals who might leave if accommodation elsewhere was available, together with the necessary support from day hospitals and other services. But no precise estimate of their number is possible. Loan sanctions totalling £14 million were given to local authorities in the financial year 1968–69 for building welfare homes for old people including the elderly mentally infirm, and I hope the total will be more this year and will continue to grow.

Dame Joan Vickers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Will he make a further survey so that we know the exact number? I am sure that he will agree that it would be a tragedy for any old people to remain in this undesirable environment taking up beds needed for people who really should have this type of treatment?

Mr. Crossman: It is not a question of keeping an exact number. The particular clinical diagnosis whether an old person needs to be in hospital is a matter


for the individual doctor. We know that there is a large number who never should have been put there. But that does not mean that we can take them out tomorrow, because they may have been institutionalised. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to give a precise number.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister mentioned financial help for these hospitals. Does he recollect that he was going to do something for the South Ockenden Hospital? Will he say how much of the £3½ million that he has promised will go to the mental hospitals will go to this particular hospital?

Mr. Crossman: It is too early to say, because the team that I sent in to give me a Report on the South Ockenden Hospital has not yet reported. But I will answer my hon. Friend directly I hear from the team.

Test-tube Fertilisation of Human Ova

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the experiments carried out in hospitals to fertilise human ova in test-tubes.

Mr. Crossman: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) on 13th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 209.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of public anxiety aroused by these experiments, legitimate though they may be, will the Secretary of State consider appointing a commission to report on their moral and social implications?

Mr. Crossman: I will be a little more precipitate. I have a meeting arranged on Wednesday, 21st May, in the Ministry.

Transplant Surgery

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of his advisory committee on transplant surgery; and whether he will publish it.

Mr. Crossman: I expect advice from my standing advisory group soon.

Mr. Dudley Smith: But as heart transplant surgery has now restarted in this

country, throwing up important ethical, moral and legal considerations, would the Secretary of State bear in mind that the public will in due course be looking to Parliament to provide necessary legislation to protect, not only the recipients of transplant operations, but also potential donors?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I am very much aware of this problem. My advisory group has a difficult job on its hands in trying to estimate public opinion, which on this subject is ambivalent and uncertain. In those circumstances, I do not think that it is wise to legislate until one is quite sure that one has the matter right and one knows the state of public opinion. It is better to leave it until things are clarified. But I would hope to get legislation if we are confident that the public will accept a view on the key issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Medicines Commission

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now in a position to announce the names of the persons whom he has invited to serve as members of the Medicines Commission.

Mr. Ennals: I cannot yet add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) and for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) on 22nd April and 12th May.—[Vol. 782, c. 69–70. Vol. 783, c. 962–3.]

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that delay in announcing the names of the members of the Commission is causing delay also in the issue of regulations, so that firms cannot make their own arrangements for such matters as tablet markings, containers, packs and so on? Will he at least assure the House that he is making advance arrangements for accommodation of the staff of the Commission's secretariat, since already even in the excellent Dunlop Committee's work, owing to under-staffing, there are considerable delays?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions and long answers mean fewer questions and fewer answers.

Mr. Ennals: A good deal of consultation has to be done because a whole range of interests must be represented on the Medicines Commission. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that it is our expectation to announce the names before the end of the summer.

Mr. Whitaker: Is it not also a fact that the Health Service would be richer by over £1 million a year if non-proprietary medicines were prescribed instead of their brand equivalents? Will the Commission be able to deal with that matter, or, if not, will the Minister?

Mr. Ennals: With respect, that is a different question. If my hon. Friend will put a Question down, I shall do my best to answer it.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is it the work of the Dunlop Committee being taken over by the Medicines Commission or is it the additional work imposed by the Act which is causing the delay?

Mr. Ennals: There is consultation about the additional work caused by the Act. There is consultation about the membership of the Commission and how it should best be composed. This is the reason why we have not yet been able to announce the names. We want to get the Commission exactly right; it is a very important body.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to apply selectively the proposed increase in retirement benefits announced in the Budget.

Mr. Ennals: No, sir. To apply the increase selectively to retirement pensioners would undermine the contributory principle on which entitlement to those benefits is based.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not clear that indiscriminate and across-the-board increases necessitate an increase in the National Insurance contribution, the magnitude of which is only just becoming apparent? Would the hon. Gentleman reconsider his position?

Mr. Ennals: The amount involved in increasing pensions was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, indeed. I repeat what I said, that the amount required to increase the benefits was made clear by my right hon. Friend. To remove the right to a pension paid for by contributions over the years would be a betrayal, and I should be surprised if even the Conservative Party suggested that there should be means testing of the 7 million retirement pensioners before they got their rights.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has my hon. Friend been able to discover whether the Conservative Party agrees or disagrees that there is an urgent need to increase retirement benefits? Comparing promise with performance, and allowing for the proposed increase, how will the value of the retirement pension compare with its value in October, 1964?

Mr. Ennals: When the new pension rates are introduced in November, they will be 20 per cent., in real terms, above the 1964 level. It was impossible to discover from the debate on Thursday whether the Conservative Party wished there to be an increase, and if so how much, or how it would pay for it.

Mr. Dean: Can the hon. Gentleman now tell us how the £430 million will be found?

Mr. Ennals: There is a later Question on the Order Paper about that matter to which my right hon. Friend will reply.

Occupational Pension Schemes

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has held on the problems of protecting pension rights in occupational pension schemes on changes of employment with organisations representing the beneficiaries of such schemes; and what consultations he intends to hold.

Mr. Ennals: Informal discussions have been held with the T.U.C. and the National Association of Pension Funds. These bodies are among those who have been invited to comment on a consultative document and we expect to hold further talks when their replies have been received.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has it been brought home to the Minister that people changing jobs are losing their pension rights at a rate well in excess of £100 million a year—in other words, at the rate of a great train robbery every nine days? Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate the urgency of this matter, even if only to promote greater mobility of labour?

Mr. Ennals: I am glad to hear that. It is precisely because so many people can neither transfer their pension rights nor have them preserved that we are bringing in this legislation. It is to remedy the faults of the past.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fault is that of the employers and that I can quote many industries in which old workers are frightened of changing their jobs because the employers will not make their pensions transferable?

Mr. Ennals: It is absolutely true that the failure of employers either to make the rights of pensioners transferable or to preserve them causes a considerable hold-up in the movement of people from one job to another.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now withdraw the consultative document on proposed legislation on preservation of occupational pension rights issued on 31st March, and circulate in place of it a comparable document setting out the possible arrangements for legislation to protect pension rights by ensuring that transferability is granted in all practicable cases.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. We are satisfied that the consultative document sets out the most realistic basis for the proposed legislation.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Does the Minister realise that, according to official figures, preservation goes only a quarter of the way towards solving the problem and that full transferability is the only satisfactory way of dealing with it? Will he prove to the House his perseverance and his administrative capacity by changing the target and going for full transferability?

Mr. Ennals: The Government are, of course, in favour of the transfer of pension

rights on change of employment where this can be arranged. The difficulty is to put this into legislation. The hon. Gentleman underestimates the difficulties of compulsory transferability, and also underestimates the advantage of preservation, which does not now exist for many millions of workers.

Royal College of Nursing (Deputation)

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received an invitation to meet representatives of the Psychiatric Committee of the Royal College of Nursing consequent upon the Committee's special meeting on 3rd April; and whether he has accepted it.

Mr. Crossman: ; Yes, Sir. I met a deputation from the Royal College of Nursing, including representatives of its Psychiatric Committee, on 15th May.

Mr. Iremonger: Was the right hon. Gentleman able to give the members of the psychiatric side any reassurance that they would get a fairer cut in the sharing of available resources so that we shall not have so many Elys in future?

Mr. Crossman: I was able to tell them what we have achieved. I told them that the regional hospital board has been requested to consider how much it can shift expenditure in that direction this year. But I also emphasised the number of things which they could do at little or no cost to help morale which, from the staff point of view, would be equally important.

Disabled Drivers (Vehicles)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further proposals he has for vehicles for disabled drivers.

Mr. Ennals: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply to a series of Questions about vehicles for the disabled on 27th January, 1969.—[Vol. 776, c. 929–32.]

Mr. Marten: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the 1,600 cars for people eligible for four-wheel cars have been issued? Is it about 250? If so, why is the number so small, considering that the offer was made in February, 1967?

Mr. Ennals: I cannot give the exact number of cars issued. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question, I will give it to him. It is true that there has been a slightly smaller number of applications under the new category than we expected when we introduced the expansion scheme.

Pensions and Benefits (Increases)

Mr. Worsley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) how he plans to finance the increase in retirement pensions this autumn;
(2) what pensions and benefits he plans to increase this autumn.

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how he proposes to finance the autumn increase in pensions.

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the size of the existing imbalance between income and expenditure of the main National Insurance Fund.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he proposes to bring in graduated contributions to pay for the cost of the autumn pensions' increase.

Mr. Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) when he expects to announce the contributions increases necessary to finance the increase in pensions this autumn;
(2) by how much he now estimates the Exchequer subsidy will be increased in order to finance the autumn increase in pensions.

Mr. Crossman: I would refer the hon. Members to what I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the debate on 15th May.

Mr. Worsley: But the right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question then. Is he seriously saying that when the Government decided to increase pensions and announced their decision in the Budget no decision about how they would be paid for had been taken and that still no decision has been taken? Is not this the act of a spendthrift?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that that was the impression created by my

speech last Thursday. On the contrary, I told the House, and it was printed fully in the Press next day, that we still had one major difficulty, which was the problem of the benefit which should be paid on the so-called graded element of the scheme and that I was still discussing this.

Mr. Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously deny that it is an unprecedented and astonishing situation that five weeks after the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the country that pensions would be increased the workers still do not know by how much contributions will go up?

Mr. Crossman: The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement a few weeks ago and the increase will be made in November. If the hon. Gentleman says that it is an absolute scandal that people should not be told now rather than in three weeks what they will be paying in November, he somewhat aggravates the problem.

Sir H. Harrison: Would not the Minister agree, with hindsight, that it has been very unwise to let the Fund run into such a heavy deficit so that increased pensions have to be linked to increased contributions? Is not this the result of the inflationary policies of the Government?

Mr. Crossman: I would put it differently. The Fund has run into deficit owing to three factors: the great increase in the number of old people who are receiving pensions; the very considerable increase in sickness benefit payments; and the considerable increase in unemployment benefit payments. These are the three major factors which have caused the present situation. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that in those cases it would have been simpler not to pay, I do not agree.

Mr. Hill: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that to have to wait for another three weeks before the level of extra contributions is known is having a paralysing effect on all employers, who have to make estimates and put forward predictions of what their activities will cost in future? Will he, therefore, urgently consider making a statement, since otherwise the pensions plan merely becomes "Crossman's chaos"?

Mr. Crossman: I gave the employers last Thursday a very accurate account of the total costs which would fall on the Fund and I gave them an assurance that they would not pay any extra part of it and that it would be shared equally between employers and employees. They should easily be able to assess their total burden.

Mr. Tinn: Surely these Questions must have been tabled three weeks before the debate. Are not right hon. and hon. Members simply using them to try to score party points?

Mr. Crossman: One would be surprised if hon. Members opposite did not behave according to their characteristics and those of an Opposition.

Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said last Wednesday that the Bill was to be published this week. What is the cause of the delay? What has happened since last week to make him change his mind?

Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Gentleman will study the speech I made on Thursday afternoon, he will see the reason I gave and I will now repeat it. The difficulty we have which is not yet resolved is in the problem of whether graded benefit should be remitted to receive the uprating every two years according to the flat-rate pension. We want to give further consideration to this and it was in the light of this that I decided to postpone publication of the Bill until after next week.

Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman owes the country the plain and simple duty to sort out the now unbelievable muddle which exists about how the extra £430 million needed for the National Insurance Fund is to be raised. Why did the right hon. Gentleman announce on Wednesday that he was going to introduce a Bill this week and on Thursday decide to withdraw it? Has his swindle been over-ruled by the Cabinet?

Mr. Crossman: I do not often do so but I re-read my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT and I am satisfied—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree if he reads it carefully—that there should be no uncertainty or confusion about the

way in which this money will be raised. I am clear that the total amount involved, the method of how we are to divide it, for the first time, between the flat rate and the graded element, together with the element of doubt to which I referred and which has caused postponement, were all clear to everyone outside the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what increases he proposes to make in the autumn in the rates of war pensions and industrial injury benefits; and, in respect of the latter, what increases in contributions are under consideration.

Mr. Ennals: I must asked the right hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Bill which will also be the occasion for the announcement of the increases proposed in war pensions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the hon. Gentleman recall hearing the Secretary of State a few moments ago telling my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) that the pensioners were entitled to hear very soon what they were going to get in the autumn? Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that he himself said the same thing on Thursday night? if that is right for retirement pensioners, is it not right for war pensioners and industrial injury pensioners? Or do the Government think of them as inferior?

Mr. Ennals: The latter categories have known for a number of weeks that there is to be an increase. The increases in the main rates of the war pensions and the industrial injuries schemes will be, as in the past, broadly proportionate to the main National Insurance increase. One of the main reasons why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a pensions increase in his Budget Statement was in order that the pensioners should know that they were to have an increase in the autumn, and if hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not appreciate that notice, the pensioners do.

Mr. Dean: The Secretary of State has just said in answer to a previous Question that everyone outside knows how much extra they are going to pay. Will the hon. Gentleman be specific and say how many


people will pay 5s. a week or more on the stamp?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Bill will be published and that it will contain both the details of the amount that will be contributed and the details of the amount of benefits. He must just be patient.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what increase he proposes to make in the rates of supplementary benefits at the time when National Insurance benefits are raised in the autumn.

Mr. Tapsell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much he proposes that supplementary benefit levels will be raised this autumn; and what estimate he has made of the cost.

Mr. Ennals: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies which I gave my hon. Friends the Members for Abertillery (Mr. Geoffrey Williams) and Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) on 28th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 158–9.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the 2 million poorer pensioners will not know how much net they are to get in the autumn until they know what the increase is going to be in supplementary benefits, because they do not know how much of the increased pension will be clawed back?

Mr. Ennals: Those on supplementary benefits know that there will be an increase in the autumn because it has been announced. They also know that there was an increase last autumn and that this further increase will cover the changes in prices during the 12 months.

Mr. Tapsell: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that, while the Secretary of State justified the timing of the Chancellor's announcement purely on the ground that the poorer sections of the community had to be given advance reassurance that their benefits would go up, he is taking the line that it is not necessary for the poorest of them to be given details?

Mr. Ennals: Obviously, when the Bill is published it will give details both of contributions and of benefits. Perhaps

the hon. Gentleman will look carefully through the records of the Conservative Government. If he does, he will find that there were long delays, sometimes as much as 3½ years, between pension increases when they were in office. He will also find that their Bills to give effect to their announcements of increases were introduced after a longer interval than this Bill is being introduced after the Budget announcement. The interval in this case between the announcement and the introduction of the Bill will be shorter than what was achieved by the Opposition.

Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether we can have an annual review of the old-age pensions as such in order to avoid the invidious position whereby supplementary benefits apparently lose out every time we have this second year review?

Mr. Ennals: Under the new scheme to be introduced on the target date of April, 1972, instead of having to have legislation from time to time in order to raise the rates, any increases made will be brought in automatically by a review every two years, and in these reviews the level of supplementary benefits will be considered as well as the National Insurance rates.

Lord Balniel: Why is it desirable to tell pensioners the exact amount of extra benefits they will be getting this time but to refuse figures for the very poorest sections of the community?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman should consult his hon. Friends behind him. They have been complaining that we have not given all the details of the benefits as well as the details of the contributions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and also of the reply to Question No. 10, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Dentists (Remuneration)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the average net remuneration before tax


of National Health Service dentists in the latest year for which figures are available in the age brackets 25 to 35 years, 35 to 45 years, 45 to 55 years and 55 to 65 years, respectively.

Mr. Crossman: I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fortescue: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, with the possible exception of the oldest profession in the world, there is no other profession the remuneration of which steadily declines as the professor gets older? Will he have urgent discussions with the British Dental Association and other representatives of the dental profession to amend this state of affairs?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must put down a Question on the first part of his supplementary question.

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman would be advised to study the figures to be published in HANSARD before he jumps to any dangerous conclusions.

Following are the figures:


AVERAGE NET REMUNERATION OF PRINCIPALS PROVIDING GENERAL DENTAL SERVICES IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1966–67


Age
Average net remuneration



£


Under 35 years
4,143


35–44 years
3,893


45–54 years
3,134


55–64 years
1,868

Note;

These figures are estimates based on a sample of single-handed practitioners who during 1966–67 did not employ an assistant dental surgeon.

Family Allowances

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will institute a study of the future of family allowances, with particular reference to negative income tax as an earnings-related alternative to the present system; and if he will publish the results as a Green Paper.

Mr. Crossman: The Government have future policy on family support under continuous study. I have no statement to make at this stage.

Mr. Barnes: In view of the fact that the unpopularity of the system of family allowances makes increases difficult, and because of the difficulties which the Chancellor has run into this year in extending the claw-back principle, will

my right hon. Friend undertake to look much more seriously at negative income tax than has been done so far, not as a cornucopia, as he once called it, but simply as a more efficient method of paying a family allowance to those families who really need one?

Mr. Crossman: There are two ways of looking at it. One, as he says, is as a cornucopia which simply substitutes negative income tax for all rates and taxes and social services, which is administratively impracticable. The second and much narrower way is to make it a substitute for family allowances. The second method has almost as many administrative difficulties as the first.

Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman look a little more sympathetically at his hon. Friend's proposition? Is he aware that we have never been given the evidence against this system, and that it would be of value for all the facts to be given to the House?

Mr. Crossman: I am sympathetic to this idea. A great deal of research has recently been done into it, some of which was summarised in the White Paper which does refer to negative income tax. I am perfectly prepared to consider the possibility of publishing this information, because it is in the public interest that people should understand this problem.

Play Groups

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now consider taking steps to involve education authorities in responsibilities for play groups.

Mr. Crossman: A circular issued last October drew the attention of local health authorities to the desirability of seeking assistance from officers of the local education authority in supervising play groups.

Miss Lestor: May I remind my right hon. Friend that the Pre-school Play Group Association is using this week to highlight the fact that there are 116,000 children under the age of 5 in groups under its care, and that the co-operation of his Department and the Department of Education and Science is needed to provide financial assistance and training


courses if the Association is to meet the needs of those children who are deprived of nursery school education?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the attention of the House to this matter, which is a considerable social problem.

Prescriptions

Dr. Summerskill: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the total number of prescriptions issued by doctors since the imposition of charges has risen or fallen.

Mr. Crossman: My information relates to the number of prescriptions dispensed by chemists. This was lower from July, 1968, to January, 1969, inclusive than in the corresponding period 12 months earlier.

Dr. Summerskill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fall indicates that patients are, regrettably, being prevented by charges from receiving treatment or, alternatively, does he attribute it to the fact that, before charges were imposed, doctors were prescribing needlessly?

Mr. Crossman: I should have thought that both possibilities were there. Our statistics are insufficient for us to draw a conclusion from them.

Mr. Allason: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety about his refusal to ratify the agreement reached by the former Minister of Health on the dispensing of medicines in country areas? Does the agree that there is a danger that doctors' prescriptions may be influenced by the drugs which they happen to have in stock?

Mr. Crossman: This is very wide of the Question, but I will reply briefly. It was not a question of my refusing to ratify an agreement but, unfortunately, refusing to ratify a draft agreement which had been repudiated by one side.

Abortion Act

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a further statement on the working of the Abortion Act.

Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to add at present to what I said on 28th April in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member

for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) and to subsequent supplementary questions.—[Vol. 782, c. 948–51.]

Mr. St. John Stevas: Is it not the truth of the matter that, owing to the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor ignoring the advice offered by the British Medical Association and the Royal College, a minority of doctors are operating a legalised racket in the private sector? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to amend the Act to prevent these harpies making fortunes by battening on human weakness?

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Gentleman asked me about the truth of the matter. I doubt whether the truth can often have such a strong propagandist tone to it.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made a widely publicised statement that thousands of foreign women were flocking to London to use the facilities of the National Health Service made available by the abortion law? Will he confirm that the number of such operations carried out on foreign women coming to this country for that purpose is trivial?

Mr. Crossman: It would be a great exaggeration to say what he said, or indeed what was said in America by an hon. Lady who is Member for one of the Birmingham constituencies, who described London as the abortion capital of the world. This seems to me to do the country no good. I think that I am right in saying that the percentage is considerably under 10 per cent. in regard to foreign women. One has to remember that we cannot forbid foreigners coming to our country and making use of medical services here.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Could the Minister say whether there is any evidence that the private sector is interpreting the provisions of the Act differently from doctors working in the National Health Service? If there is any such evidence, could he consider making an investigation and, eventually, a statement?

Mr. Crossman: I must be careful about this. The control which the Secretary of State is permitted to have is not


control of the doctor, but control of the premises and the equipment. It is not for us to go beyond our job of looking at the premises and the equipment. To go much further than that would invade clinical freedom in a way that the House would not appreciate.

Dental Treatment

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT items of dental treatment which a patient may require but which may not be provided under his regulations by a dental practitioner under the National Health Service.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will carry out a review of the list of treatment which cannot be provided by a dental practitioner under the National Health Service.

Mr. Crossman: When a dentist has accepted a patient for treatment under the general dental services, he is required to provide or arrange for the provision of all treatment necessary to secure dental fitness that the patient is willing to undergo.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of patients are persuaded to pay for private treatment when the same treatment, and equally good cosmetic results, can be attained through the National Health Service? Will he take steps to advise patients of their rights in this respect?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, there are grievances here. Patients should put their complaints against dentists to the executive council concerned. If they are aggrieved with the decision of the Dental Estimates Board then they can appeal to me, and I hope that they know that.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that when people are asked to pay extra for dental treatment of one sort or another, or even for spectacles, they would not mind doing this, if the increase is reasonable, provided that they get back the money in decreased taxes, rather than that the Government should waste it in some other direction?

Mr. Crossman: I will hear that in mind and would advise my hon. Friends to approach their dentists in that spirit.

National Health Service (Reorganisation)

Mr. Will Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether his discussions about the reorganisation of the National Health Service are yet complete; and if he will now make a statement.

Mr. Crossman: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his consultations will be completed before the introduction of the Report of the Royal Commission on the reform of local government?

Mr. Crossman: No, I would not expect them to be completed before. I hope that they will have got so far that I shall be able to urge on my colleagues that very soon after the Report of the Royal Commission there will be a statement on the future of the Health Service

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Can the Minister say whether he intends to pay a little more attention in the second version of the Green Paper than he did in the first to the position of the voluntary services, particularly those helping in hospitals, mental hospitals and long-stav care hospitals?

Mr. Crossman: I was not responsible for drafting the first version, but the hon. Gentleman will find that the whole structure of the second tier and its close link with the community and the voluntary services will be emphasised in the new version.

Supplementary Benefits

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why, when there is an increase of rent or other changed circumstance which justifies an increase in supplementary benefit, such increased benefit cannot be paid until the pensioner's current order book is exhausted, and then cannot be back-dated; and if he will remedy this anomaly.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): The rule described by my hon. Friend is not of general application. It applies only to changes of circumstances resulting in a variation of 2s. a week or less in the rate


of supplementary benefit. Its purpose is to avoid altering order books, with all the associated work and inconvenience, for very small amounts. The rule operates in respect of downward changes as well as upward.

Mr. Driberg: Since that seems to mean that administrative convenience takes precedence over individual welfare, does my hon. Friend realise what hardship is caused to a number of people by the application of this rule? It would not be so difficult administratively. Why, therefore, can the increase not be backdated?

Mr. Pentland: As I said, the rule operates downwards as well as upwards in regard to these changes. It was not brought in with any idea of disregarding real hardship cases for supplementary benefit. When the Supplementary Benefit Commission was brought into being and we established one order book, the rule operated more or less to meet the claimants' requirements and not for any other purpose.

Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend not agree with me that there are few examples at present of rents which go down? Is it not clear, therefore, that this operates very much against the interests of those who are in the greatest need? Would he not look at this again, because the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is a very sensible one?

Mr. Pentland: I realise the concern that there is about this, and it would be understandable if the rule always operated upwards. But, as I said, it also covers downward movements. There have been quite a number of cases, following the introduction of the new Rent Act, where rents were downward. However, I will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that rates have gone up very steeply recently and that they hardly ever go down?

Mr. Pentland: Yes, Sir, but the rule to which we are referring is known as "the tolerance rule" by the Department. It does not apply to increases in the scale rates of supplementary benefits.

Spectacle Frames (Design)

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to improve the design of spectacle frames available under the National Health Service.

Mr. Ennals: We have this matter under consideration.

Mr. Hunt: In the course of that consideration, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in most cases the present frames are dreary, unimaginative and outdated, and that many people needlessly pay several pounds extra for private frames because of the total inadequacy of the National Health Service range?

Mr. Ennals: It is true that some are unattractive and not in great demand. Others are particularly attractive and in great demand. The 524 plastic frame which comes in six colours is a good example. But one cannot act as a sort of cosmetic service. Recently one has seen glasses almost as large as bicycle wheels. One could not expect those to come on the National Health Service.

National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, 1967

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, in view of the difficulties which have arisen with regard to the operation of the Abortion Act, he will ensure that all local authorities take full advantage of their powers under the National Health Service (Family Planning) Act, 1967.

Mr. Crossman: I am taking every opportunity to encourage local authorities to expand their family planning services, but it must be a matter for each individual authority to determine the speed of its advance in the light of finance and staff available.
I have also decided to make the Family Planning Association a grant of £20,000 a year for five years towards their expenditure on training, and this will contribute towards the development of family planning services.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has at last given a more or less satisfactory answer? Will he be so good as to use all his persuasion


on the local authorities to achieve better results in terms of their assistance to family planning centres?

Mr. Crossman: Certainly I will. We have reached the point where 170 out of 175 have reported that they have some kind of service, but, of course, the quality varies enormously.

Test Census (Cost)

Sir E. Errington: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated cost of the 1969 Test Census.

Mr. Ennals: £55,000, Sir.

Sir E. Errington: Will the hon. Gentleman say, when this trial census has been completed, when it has been examined and when the information required has been obtained, whether it will be destroyed?

Mr. Ennals: Certainly the experience that will be gained will not be destroyed. After all, the main purpose of this Test Census is to formulate a suitable list of questions presented in a way which can be understood and satisfactorily answered by the public. This test will enable us to produce the best possible results for the 1971 census.

Social Statistics (White Paper)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will publish a White Paper detailing social statistics such as suicide, illegitimacy, children in care, venereal disease, divorce and crime rates in the principal urban areas of England and Wales.

Mr. Ennals: The Central Statistical Office is preparing a new regular publication on social statistics to be published under the title "Social Trends" which will cover the topics mentioned by my hon. Friend. I regret that comprehensive statistics of this nature for individual urban areas are not available.

Mr. Judd: While thanking my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, will he not agree that meaningful planning by national, local and regional authorities necessitates the availability of social statistics of this type in detail, as well as

the economic statistics at the disposal of the D.E.A.?

Mr. Ennals: Yes, but to do an overall survey would be costly in terms of both money and staff time. However, if my hon. Friend has a particular request to make, I will endeavour to supply him with the information.

Antibiotics (Cost)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a claim for overpayment in respect of the purchase for the National Health Service of broad-spectrum antibiotics in cases where the parent companies of the suppliers fail in their appeal to the Supreme Court in the United States of America against their conviction on price-fixing and other charges.

Mr. Crossman: I am advised that I have no claim against these suppliers arising out of proceedings in the United States.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an area where £3½ million might well be saved? Has he examined the results of the Kefauver Report, the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1961 and the Sainsbury Report to see how much more vigorously he can pursue economies in this direction?

Mr. Crossman: I am well aware that this has, quite reasonably, raised a sense of annoyance among those who, as I do, want to see a reduction in the cost of drugs. However, the decision of the American court does not confer any rights under English law. That is our difficulty.

Mr. Fisher: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that these attacks on American owned companies are misconceived in that it is greatly in Britain's economic interest to have American research investment based here for export to Europe rather than vice-versa, and that the V.P.R. scheme precludes this practice?

Mr. Crossman: I did not take my hon. Friend as attacking American schemes. He was concerned about an American court decision, in the hope that it could be applied profitably here.

Medicines and Drugs (Accidents to Children)

Mr. William Wells: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of the number of cases of poisoning of children through their mistaking pills for sweets, whether he will take steps to ensure that manufacturers' products are readily distinguishable as such.

Mr. Ennals: I cannot at present add to the replies my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department gave to similar Questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) and the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) on 20th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 714–15.]

Mr. Wells: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in Walsall alone over the Easter holiday more than ten children were poisoned in this way? If this is a specimen of what happens over a holiday period, it adds up to a serious social problem.

Mr. Ennals: Certainly I am distressed to hear of the figures from my home town of Walsall. There are two points. Under Section 88 of the Medicines Act, 1968, we may make regulations to govern the colour, shape and marking of particular types of medicines. Until this can be done, the most important thing is for all parents to ensure that medicines are kept securely locked away from children. The more publicity that can be given to this the better.

MINISTERS (PERMANENT UNDER-SECRETARIES)

Mr. Stephen Hastings: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

the doctrine referred to by the Secretary of State for Social Services by which Permanent Under-Secretaries can forbid Ministers from taking their chosen course of action.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for giving you no warning, but in the circumstances I submit that it was beyond my power.
This matter is specific because the words of the Secretary of State were specific and will doubtless appear in HANSARD tomorrow. It relates to Question No. 33, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean.)
It is important, to say the very (east, because it represents, if true, a complete reversal of the system of administration to which the House of Commons heretofore has been accustomed.
Lastly, it is urgent, because, in the midst of all the other manifold uncertainties which we suffer under this Government, the country and the House of Commons can really put up with it no more.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, of course, has given me no notice that he was going to apply to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 at this moment. But I have listened very carefully to every word that he said, including the last sentence.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the doctrine referred to by the Secretary of State for Social Services by which Permanent Under-Secretaries can forbid Ministers from taking their chosen course of action.
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's representation, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUNTIDE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday 9th June.—[Mr. Peart.]

3.34 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis: Mr. Speaker, I move that we do not adjourn until 9th June so that the House may discuss a very urgent, though it may appear to be rather small, matter, namely, the creamery strike in South-West Scotland which is spreading to other creameries throughout Scotland.
Already, farmers are having to milk their cows and pour milk down the drains because it cannot go to the creamery. This strike is quite liable to spread, and unless action is taken urgently there will be a shortage of milk in large towns like Glasgow.
Another matter which we should also discuss urgently before we adjourn is the Government's proposals for dealing with labour relations and unofficial strikes. This strike is unofficial and it is surely a case—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to help him, although he may not need any help. We cannot debate, on this Motion, the subjects that the hon. Gentleman would like to debate. He must advance reasons why we should not have a holiday at Whitsun. The hon. Gentleman must link his remarks to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Brewis: I thank you for your assistance, Mr. Speaker. I feel that we should not adjourn for Whitsun so long as the Government's compulsory powers under the Prices and Incomes Act still remain in force. They are being allowed to lapse later this year, but this strike is involved with a wage claim by workers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, no matter how sympathetic I am with the hon. Gentleman's point, we cannot discuss the strike on the Motion. The hon. Gentleman must advance reasons why we should not have a holiday at Whitsun.

Mr. Brewis: I feel that we should not have our holiday at Whitsun because

we should take a day to discuss the Government's compulsory powers under the Prices and Incomes Act as this particular strike could be settled at once but for compulsory powers which are preventing a settlement being reached. For these reasons, I am against the House adjourning for such a long Recess.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am concerned at the House rising for the Whitsun Recess at a time when our economic future is in such considerable doubt as a result of negotiations at present going on with the International Monetary Fund.
Frankly, I am not so concerned about what is or is not in the Letter of Intent. I am concerned that we should not come back and find ourselves committed to an international financial policy which has proved singularly disastrous, because if we accept the loan we are committed to the policy. Therefore, what is put in the Letter of Intent seems singularly unimportant. The important thing is whether we are committed to a policy which involves our maintaining sterling as a convertible currency for the convenience of the International Monetary Fund and countries wishing to deal in sterling. It seems wrong that a decision of such vital importance and such a heavy commitment should take place while Parliament is in recess.
I have taken a very strong view on this matter from an early date. Indeed, as long ago as 1965 I raised the question—and got into very considerable trouble—whether, as a member of the Labour Party, I should continue to support a Labour Government who were committed to a policy which would bring about the kind of disasters which have happened—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is drifting into the merits and political history. He must keep to the Motion.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will appreciate that it is always a very difficult line to draw. One has an issue which is being decided, and to make the case for the importance of the issue without discussing its merits is an extremely difficult thing to do.

Mr. Speaker: That is a difficulty which has confronted every hon. Member in history who has ever spoken on this debate.

Mr. Paget: I shall do my utmost to keep myself on the right side of the knifeedge.
The sources of our troubles over these years, which leads me to say "I told you so", I have toreseen for a long time. At this point we are taking a fundamental decision. Are we to cut ourselves free as recommended so strongly and in such powerful articles in the Economist last week, or are we to continue on this miserable course which leads from one disaster to another because we can no longer control our policy, or our production, or our expansion? All this has to go on being adjusted to maintain an untenable banking position for the convenience of people outside this country.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what the hon. and learned Member will be able to discuss if he prevents us from having our Whitsun holiday.

Mr. Paget: I think that I have set out the sort of case which we ought to discuss and about which the Government ought to have our point of view before they send us away and take this vital decision in our absence.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. and learned Member is probably not aware that the Government Chief Whip has infiltrated the ranks behind him and is busy talking to those who might be prepared to follow him. I wonder whether—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, that is a point of gossip.

Mr. Paget: I can only say that after 20 years' experience of the Government Chief Whip any advice which he gives will be eminently sensible and for the benefit of those who receive it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps we might now get back to the debate, which is whether we should have a Whitsun holiday on the dates set out in the Motion.

Mr. Paget: I was on the point of sitting down, Mr. Speaker.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I am glad that the Patronage Secretary is in the Chamber, if not exactly in his place, because it is particularly to the right hon. Gentleman that I wish to refer.
I wish to oppose the Motion because of the interests of the electors of Swindon. I do not believe that the House should adjourn for the Whitsun Recess until the Patronage Secretary has told the House that it is his intention to move the writ for the by-election in the constituency of Swindon.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is not this an example of Tory Party selectivity that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the electors of Swindon and not those of Birmingham, Ladywood?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are almost drifting into merits.

Mr. Sharples: I am interested in the electors of all constituencies, but there are particular reasons why the electors of Swindon should receive consideration from this House before we adjourn for the Whitsun Recess.
It was on 9th February, 1968, that Mr. Francis Noel-Baker, then the Member for Parliament for the Swindon constituency, announced that he intended to resign from the House of Commons. He said at that time:
I shall try to time my actual resignation to suit the general convenience of"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into merits. That is what the hon. Member will be able to discuss if he manages to postpone our holiday. The hon. Member can say that he does not want the House to adjourn until this matter has been raised, but he cannot argue the merits of the matter.

Mr. Sharples: Of course, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.
It was on 7th March, 1969, over a year later, that Mr. Francis Noel-Baker resigned from this House. A considerable time has elapsed since then, and that is why I am suggesting to the Patronage Secretary, who is about to resume his correct place, that before the House goes away for the Recess he should announce to the House, to the country, and especially to the electors of


Swindon, that it is the Government's intention that the by-election for this constituency should take place before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess.
If the by-election is to take place before the Summer Recess, I believe—and the Patronage Secretary can correct me if I am wrong—that it is necessary for the writ to be moved before the Whitsun Recess, otherwise we come into the summer holiday period, when it will be very difficult, and not in the interests of the electors, irrespective of party, for the by-election to take place when nearly everybody is on holiday.
I cannot see any reason why this announcement should not be made within the next day or so. After all, the candidates who are to take part in the by-election were selected some time ago. It is known in the constituency that the by-election must take place fairly soon, and that the constituency must be represented in Parliament. It is difficult to see why the Government, who had a majority at Swindon of 10,443 at the General Election, should be reluctant—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are just tilting over into merits.

Mr. Sharples: I am trying not to trespass on your kindness, Mr. Speaker.
It is very difficult to see why, when it has been known for a long time that this by-election must take place, the Patronage Secretary should not give an undertaking to the House before we agree to the passing of this Motion that he will move this writ before the House adjourns for the Whitsun Recess.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. James Dickens: Encouraged as I was by the close presence of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary recently, a move which I can only think betokens a change of Government policy in the direction that many of us have been advocating for so long, I am forced to rise this afternoon to express my strong dissatisfaction with the fact that the House has not found time either last week or this week, and apparently it will not find time until we resume after the Whitsun Recess, to debate a matter which vitally concerns the livelihood of the great majority of the British people.
I am referring, of course, to the negotiations now known to be in progress between the Treasury and the Bank of England in London and the I.M.F. in Washington.
I think that it is of the most profound concern that we here in Parliament, held accountable at intervals of not more than five years at any one time to the electorate for our stewardship of the nation's affairs, have no say whatsoever in the pattern or the policy being made in the course of these negotiations. It is intolerable that in this modern age this House should be treated in this way.
We should learn from what happened in 1967, and from the effects of that. In 1967, thanks to French Press reports in Paris, the House learned of the existence of the Letter of Intent to the I.M.F. following devaluation in November, 1967. It was only as a result of the pressures brought to bear in this Chamber by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that the House of Commons was able to debate the Letter after it had gone.
I say that the House should have a right to debate the general policy surrounding such important international negotiations before final decisions are made. I say that it would raise the standing of the House in the eyes of the country—especially the young electorate—if we were seen to be playing a more positive part in the background of these negotiations. I can see no reason why, this week, we should not have a free-ranging debate, with both Front Benches out of it, for the good reason that many of us feel that the agreements on broad issues of policy between the Front Benches are already too close.
The matter should be left to back benchers who hold views on the economic strategy of the Government. We would ask for nothing more than that the Government should listen to what we have to say about the matter. That is a quite reasonable request. The fact that we have not succeeded in having a debate on this matter before these negotiations are finalised further lowers the standing of the House in the eyes of the country.
It is because I am so concerned about this matter that I have sought to speak in this short Adjournment debate. The


lessons that we must learn are that in future, when important negotiations are taking place, we, as Members of the House, on whatever side we sit—and especially back benchers—should again assert the supremacy of Parliament. I am not asking that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or any other Cabinet Minister, should be held accountable to the House while negotiations are in progress, but I submit that it would be entirely beneficial to the Government, in their conduct of these negotiations, if they had the benefit of the views of back benches on both sides of the House.
We have been told that the Government cannot conduct negotiations through the House of Commons. If we reflect upon the history of the 20th century we may come to the conclusion that it would not have been a bad thing if, in the summer of 1919, the House had expressed its view on the draft Treaty of Versailles, or if, in the autumn of 1938, it had expressed its view about a proposed Munich Agreement. It would be quite in keeping with changing public attitudes and the growing determination on the part of our people—whether they be students or working people—to participate more fully in the affairs of the nation.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I can think of one good reason why the House of Commons should agree to the Motion to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess at the end of this week. It is a purely selfish one, namely, that we should then be spared the painful sight of this awful and crumbling Administration, who are doing so much harm to our country. I describe it as selfish only to dismiss it; there are, unfortunately, other and better reasons why we should continue to subject ourselves to this painful ordeal.
I agree with hon. Members on both sides who have said that we ought to remain here and attempt to exercise some surveillance over what is being done in our name. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury—usually quite selfpossessed—looked deeply worried last week when dealing with this subject. He had the air of a man who had to play out time until Whitsun, and who was attempting to get away with the argument that he could not tell the House

of Commons what was happening during the course of the negotiations, and that this was the wrong place in which to carry out negotiations.
That may be so, but I still feel, as do the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), that before we rise we have a right to be told what is being done in our name. We are painfully conscious of the fact that previous negotiations have landed us with a load of debt—very heavy debt—which we have no means of knowing how to discharge. When we return from the Whitsun Recess are we to be told that yet another economic and financial millstone has been tied around our necks? If that is to be the case we shall have the bitter satisfaction of knowing only that that is the price that we have been called upon, in our absence, to pay for a further period of misery under this Administration.
In the light of the report of the Secretary of State for the Department of Economic Affairs, and of the Chancellor's Budget speech, we are faced with the ruin of the Government's economic strategy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into a speech which would be in order on Whit Monday, if we came back then.

Mr. Peyton: I humbly and respectfully congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on the tremendous cunning with which you have avoided using the word "merits" in that context.
Faced as we are with this ruin, we have some ground for complaint that we are not being told, before Whitsun, whether it is the Government's intention to continue wallowing in the mire which they have produced, or whether, alternatively, they will look for salvation elsewhere.
There are many other reasons why the Motion should not be passed. It would be very unfair if we were to complain that the House of Commons had no information about the Industrial Relations Bill; we have a plethora of information. The unfortunate thing is that we do not know how much is reliable—and we should like to know the Government's intentions about the Bill. We should like to know which of the various versions—

Mr. John Mendelson: rose—

Mr. Peyton: Does the hon. Member wish to intervene?

Mr. Mendelson: Yes. I remember the time when the hon. Gentleman took a rather different view of constitutional doctrine—when the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Conservative Party, had sacked eight Cabinet Ministers shortly before a Recess, and when important international negotiations were going on.

Mr. Joel Barnett: He did not sack the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton).

Mr. Mendelson: He did not. Many of us were pressing the Government not to adjourn. The hon. Member walked into the Lobby in support of the Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better get back to the question whether we should have a Whitsun holiday.

Mr. Peyton: That was an astonishingly interesting intervention. The hon. Member was good enough to mention me. However lucky I may have been, I had had only 13 weeks in office during which to perpetrate offences. Mr. Harold Macmillan thought that even a junior Minister should be given a further opportunity to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether the hon. Member was dismissed or not, or whether he should have been dismissed or not, has nothing to do with the Motion.

Mr. Peyton: What it was bringing me to was this: I was hoping that we might have some foreknowledge of a similar "Night of the Long Knives", when hundreds of heads might roll off that Front Bench over Whitsun. It would be nice if the House of Commons were here at an early date after Whitsun, to take an appreciative look—perhaps that is the wrong adjective—at the successors whom the Prime Minister has found to do his will, in so far as he knows what that is.
When I was interrupted I was saying that it would be very nice and acceptable if we had some knowledge of which version of the dialogue now going on between the T.U.C. and the Government is correct. We would very much like to know which of the two participants in the dialogue has the upper hand in the nation's affairs.
I agree very warmly with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who drew attention to the interests of the electors of Birmingham, Ladywood and Swindon. Since we have the pleasure of the presence of the Leader of the House, I hope that he will be able to tell us that he or his right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who has just left the Chamber, obviously for this very purpose, will move for the writs for those two by-elections before Whitsun.
For too long the Government have been reluctant to take the step which honour dictates and demands.

Sir Douglas Glover: My hon. Friend is too modest. There are three constituencies concerned. He has forgotten Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will make his own speech. He does not need any help.

Mr. Peyton: I am a very modest man, and I am always grateful for help, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). I am grateful to him for reminding me of a constituency which I had carelessly omitted to mention.
But the same arguments apply. Even that diminished sense of shame possessed by the Leader of the House should lead him to remedy the deprivations suffered by the electors of those constituencies before we rise. If he cannot, it would be a proper act of penance if the Government said that the House should stay until next week, or come back earlier, so that he can take an opportunity which, in view of the coming summer holidays, is beginning to look more unlikely.
There is another matter about which I hope to hear from the Home Secretary before we agree to the Motion, namely, the report from the Boundary Commission. We are in a state of uncertainty. Those in the Government who can still calculate think that the report must be put under the carpet for as long as possible. On the other hand, we are told, the Home Secretary has suddenly perceived the virtue of candour and courage and is counselling his colleagues that there can be no delay of this important matter. If that is so, for once I find myself warmly on the side of the Home


Secretary and hope very much that he will be given an opportunity to introduce the necessary recommendations in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for it to be either this week or in the period of the proposed holiday.

Mr. Peyton: You cut me off short, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that if, to do so, it is necessary to curtail the Whitsun Recess, or abolish it altogether, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would countenance that awful prospect with equanimity, since that would be in accord with the demands of justice.
There is another matter to which I would like to call the attention of the House—steel prices. Not long ago we were told that it was really necessary, if we were to have at least one nationalised industry which did not lose large sums of money—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate steel prices now. The hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Peyton: I would be very deaf if, by now, I had not appreciated the general tenor of your remarks, Mr. Speaker. I realise that you wish to keep me within the rules of order, and I am trying to keep within them.
It is necessary that the Government should make a statement on steel prices before we rise for Whitsun or during what would have been the Whitsun Recess, so as to avert what looked like catastrophic losses for the industry. But, as it is, the Government and Mr. Aubrey Jones are making one of their accustomed muddles, which looks impressive but has no results except losses.
My last point is the strange versions we are hearing of affairs inside and outside No. 10 Downing Street. I would welcome, and would be very willing to stay behind to hear, a lucid explanation of exactly what is occurring. I do not want to trespass beyond the rules of order, but we were told that some junior Ministers had a very mortifying experience the other day. May not I ask the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister would not welcome the opportunity to explain to the House what his relations with his Ministers are, and particularly

to tell us when Cabinet proceedings are secret and when they are not?
My last point is very simple. We wish, above all, to be told, so that we may have some prospect of enjoying the Whitsun Recess, that a term is and can be set upon the life of the present rotting Administration.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: I find it difficult to accept the Motion for several reasons. First, in present circumstances, to go off for a holiday at Whit-sun is, in the terminology of the time, either an unofficial strike, or, as I prefer to call it, a Government-imposed illegitimate lock-out, because there is important business which should be discussed before Whitsun.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Do not the Government intend it as a cooling-off period for the Labour Party?

Mr. Fletcher: I cannot say that I am grateful for that intervention, because I am well-known on this side of the House as a living cooling-off period.
A few days ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs announced that special areas were to receive special grants as a result of the recommendations of the Hunt Committee. The precise boundaries of the areas were not defined. The House was then told, and this has subsequently been said in print, that the definition of the boundaries must await consultation with the regional planning councils. I have no objection whatever to consultation with them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in the Hunt Committee, which affects his constituents and many others. But he cannot argue about it now. He must ask for time to discuss it during Whitsun.

Mr. Fletcher: I merely argue that before consultations take place with the councils, which are undoubtedly expert, the collective wisdom of the House should be brought to bear. That demand has been made not only from this side of the House, but was made at the time of the announcement by hon. Members opposite. This may be a minor matter, but if the House is devalued in even a minor matter like this, which affects very


few hon. Members, it is something that one should protest about, and protest I do.
My second point is perhaps related. It deals with a familiar theme. I and many other hon. Members are becoming fed up with the well-known ignorance of experts. In the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), the House and country face a series of recommendations by experts from the International Monetary Fund, whereas many hon. Members do not accept all the qualifications of those so-called experts. There is a conflict of opinion among expert witnesses and it is right and proper that that conflict should be debated urgently in Parliament.
Perhaps hon. Members who take a different view from that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no merit in our argument. We may be excessively stupid. But as there is a conflict of opinion among the experts—I will not go into the merits of the matter, except to mention that Elliot Janeway can be regarded as an expert in this context—we should deliberate the possible consequence of that conflict before the Government plunge the country into another round of disastrous deflation.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I support the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) in saying that before any negotiations take place with the I.M.F. the matter should be debated in the House.
Normally, from the constitutional point of view, we allow the Government of the day to get on with negotiations of this kind and then, if we feel so inclined, kick them afterwards. But the present Government have, by any standard, lost control to such an extent and seem so intent on charging down hill like a herd of Gadarene piglets that we should discuss the matter before we rise for Whitsun.
I wish to concentrate on the question of Anguilla. Without drifting into the merits of the case, I will merely deploy some facts which are criticisms of the Government's handling of the Anguillan situation. There is no merit whatever in their handling of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate the Government's handling of Anguilla on this Motion. We are debating whether or not to rise on Friday for Whitsun. He must link his remarks about Anguilla to that Motion.

Mr. Marten: In saying that I did not intend to drift into the merits of the case, I thought that I had foreseen your calling me to order, Mr. Speaker, particularly as I was about to say that there are no merits in their handling of the situation.
We should not adjourn for Whitsun without a firm undertaking from the Leader of the House that the Government will hold a full, frank and searching inquiry into the whole conduct of the Government and into their reasons for the invasion of Anguilla. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me that assurance, I will be prepared to go away on holiday. I fear that the House has been grossly misled by the Government over Anguilla. I would not like that remark to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT without its being justified. I hope, therefore, that I will be allowed to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that comment because I was unable to stop him from doing so, but he cannot justify it in this debate. Perhaps he will be able to do so in the debate on Whit Monday.

Mr. Marten: My only claim is that we should not rise for Whitsun until the Leader of the House has given a firm undertaking. I demand such an undertaking in view of the reasons given by the Government for the invasion of Anguilla. They said that we could not fully discharge our responsibilities for external relations unless we took action—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I seem to remember the hon. Gentleman having spoken on this issue before. I again remind him that we are not debating Anguilla today. He must advance reasons why we should or should not adjourn on Friday.

Mr. Marten: The Government have grossly misled the House, and they continue to do so, over Anguilla. For this reason we should not adjourn until the


Government have made a clean breast of the whole business. I therefore would not feel justified in resuming my seat without saying why.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Every hon. Member who takes part in this debate is in exactly the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself. He may say that certain things are so important that they should be discussed before we rise on Friday, or that we should return during Whitsun to discuss them, but he cannot debate those matters now.

Mr. Marten: These are indeed important matters, Mr. Speaker, but since you do not wish to hear good reasons why the Government are discrediting this House by their behaviour, I conclude by reminding hon. Members that if politics in Britain are not to be debased in the way they have been by the behaviour of Foreign Office Ministers over the question of Anguilla, then the only way in which the good name of Britain can be cleared is for a full, frank and searching inquiry to be established into the Anguilla situation. I trust that the Leader of the House will assure us that that will be done.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I wish to raise a serious constitutional point to explain why the present situation surrounding certain important international negotiations is different from that last occasion when similar negotiations took place, and I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) will bear this in mind.
In advancing this point, I do not take kindly to the argument of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who referred at the outset of his remarks to what he described as special reasons why these negotiations should be debated in the House before they are concluded. As a participant in a former Administration, he must know that any Government normally resist holding a debate while negotiations of this kind are continuing. He supported that concept in the past, when the Conservatives were in office. He now wishes, for obvious propagandist, shabby reasons, to abandon that position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
I am choosing my words carefully. Because the Labour Party is in power he is searching for reasons to have a

debate prior to the negotiations being completed, and one such reason is a damaging and unworthy declaration on his part that the Government have lost control, so that the matter must be debated before the negotiations are concluded. He knows as well as any other hon. Member that it is not his job, while negotiations of this kind are proceeding, to talk in such terms about the present administration of Her Majesty's affairs.

Mr. Marten: The hon. Gentleman has accused me of talking in certain terms. Is not he aware that the terms I used are absolutely true?

Mr. Mendelson: No.

Mr. Marten: If the hon. Gentleman had read the weekend newspapers and the Press all last week he would know—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are drifting into the merits of the remark that the hon. Gentleman made. I would not allow him to do that and I allowed only a brief comment on it from the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson).

Mr. Mendelson: The serious constitutional point I wish to put to the Leader of the House concerns these international negotiations. In 1967, when these negotiations were pending, I submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, an application for them to be debated. You ruled on that occasion that a Ministerial statement had not yet been made about a Letter of Intent—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is important that I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must not interpret why I ruled as I did on that occasion. I ruled then, as I always do on these matters, without giving an explanation.

Mr. Mendelson: I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I was merely using that point to prefix what occurred in a subsequent debate, but I will leave the matter there.
The position today is different, because we are debating a Motion to adjourn for 16 days. This is a fairly long period: the Easter Recess was much shorter.
In 1967, whilst the international negotiations were taking place, the House was meeting every day. That meant that by our procedure at 3.30, or in other ways, the House could to some extent make known, by Private Notice Question, or through you, Mr. Speaker, reasons why


the matter had suddenly acquired such urgency as to make a debate desirable, and enabling you to agree to a debate.
During the next 16 days the House will not be in that position. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on behalf of the Government last week, when there were still six Parliamentary days ahead, that he will not be in a position to make an announcement about the Letter of Intent and the negotiations until after the Whitsun Recess. My right hon. Friend has not tied himself to any particular date but, taking it at the earliest, it means that the negotiations may be concluded two or three days after the House adjourns.
I take it that holidays do not matter when such important negotiations are taking place, so that it is quite realistic to assume that the Letter of Intent may be agreed on and, indeed, be signed and sent by my right hon. Friend only two or three days after the House adjourns. There will then be an interval of, perhaps, 10 days during which this House cannot express any opinion.
Moreover, in a few more days there may be further phases in the negotiations. More officers of the Department may go to Washington for further negotiations. I submit that it was healthy for the democratic process that last week some information came through from Washington about the character of the negotiations. The fact that, however imperfectly, some of my hon. Friends who wanted a full debate were able to say something on the subject meant that the House was to some limited degree expressing its opinion.
During the proposed Whitsun Recess no such opportunity will be given to any hon. Member. If my right hon. Friend sees merit in the point I am making, will he not convey to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need to take notice of this constitutional position, and ask him whether on Thursday or Friday he could make a statement, even if it only a preliminary statement, because of the long interval that would otherwise occur? There is great concern about these matters, and a very important constitutional point is involved.
As I pointed out in 1967, one of the main reasons why it is urgent for the

House to have a debate while the negotiations are going on is that things in the Letter of Intent committing the Government may preclude, or greatly influence, further legislation. The Government control the negotiations, they also control the business of the House, and they control the nature of our legislation.
The Letter of Intent may be signed and sent off committing us, and it is, therefore, of the greatest importance that there should be an opportunity for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the House into his confidence, even though only in a preliminary statement, before the House adjourns. I submit that there are excellent political reasons and equally good constitutional reasons for that to be done.

4.24 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: Though I listened very carefully last week to the Leader of the House announcing the business for this week, I did not hear him state that we were to have this debate now. I only happened to hear it on the 8 o'clock news broadcast this morning. The Leader of the House has a new technique and a technique which is better than that of his predecessor. He tells us about our holidays, and what is to happen about debates, and so on. But in answer to almost every question put to him, he replies "Not next week". Sometimes he varies it by saying, "It is a very important issue that ought to be debated"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This character study of the Leader of the House is interesting, but the hon. Lady must come to the Motion.

Dame Irene Ward: I was feeling in a rather benevolent mood, Mr. Speaker. I thought that if we did not adjourn for Whitsun it would relieve the right hon. Gentleman from his difficulty of always having to tell the House that there was no time for a debate, however important the subject.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am very interested in the parliamentary machine. There are a lot of things which back benchers ought to discuss which, presumably, would not be acceptable to the Executive. For instance, if


I may put it in these terms, I would be very willing to give up my Whitsun weekend if I could meet the "Gnomes of Zurich." I would enjoy that meeting very much and, perhaps, in some sense, I would be able to tell them a great deal more than could the Treasury Bench about what the country wants. It would, therefore, be a rather good idea not to adjourn for the Whitsun Recess.
I agree with hon. Members opposite that this is a matter on which Parliament should express views, particularly as there is not one Minister whom I would trust to deal with matters in which my constituency, the country or I myself is interested. That is a very important reason for our not adjourning on Friday, or Thursday, or whenever it is—that is one of the difficulties with this Government; we never know whether we are standing, sitting or moving.
I have asked the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, who has now become Secretary of State for Social Services, when we are to get the question of nurses properly and adequately dealt with. This is a tremendously important matter for the nursing profession, for the sick and for the old. I asked the right hon. Gentleman when the Whitley Council was to meet again to discuss the issue. When the issue is discussed—and I hope that it will be discussed this week, because it is a matter of great urgency—the House will want to know what decisions had been taken by the Whitley Council, and debate them.
The Secretary of State refused to give me an answer. I therefore think that it is very unwise, having regard to the general interest and the general anxiety of the country in what is to happen within the National Health Service, and in the hospital service and among the nurses, for the House to adjourn for Whitsun without knowing accurately what the position is and what the timetable is.
The Secretary of State is not the least interested in back benchers. Indeed he is not really interested in Parliament. We knew that before, and I was delighted that the whole of the Finance Bill has not gone to a Standing Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must leave the second character study that the hon. Lady is giving us and the question of the

Finance Bill being divided into two, and come back to whether we have a Whitsun holiday or not.

Dame Irene Ward: If the Finance Bill had not been divided into two we might not have had a chance of a Whitsun Recess. This Treasury Bench is so unpredictable that we do not know where we are.
I do not think that it is business-like—and I am very business-like—to adjourn for the Recess without knowing absolutely and accurately what the timetable is on certain issues. If we are not to have a time-table before we go away and to know what we are to do when we come back, it will be very disturbing for the country as a whole, and I am particularly interested in the country.
It is very difficult ever to follow the mind of the Secretary of State for the Social Services. We do not know how his mind will move about the pensions provisions, which is a matter of great interest to this House. Perhaps when he replies to the debate the Leader of the House will be able to answer the question which his colleague refused to answer when it was put to him this afternoon.
That is something I want to know before I make up my mind on this Motion. It is very difficult to know what people are to pay for their increased pensions; Ministers are so out of touch with the country, except that they know they would be hoofed out if a General Election were announced before the Recess. I would be willing to forgo the Recess if that were done.
This Whitsun holiday does not go down well with the people because—this applies to politicians on both sides—the country does not like politicians, but we would do better with a different Treasury Bench. It is intolerable that we should go away for a long period without the country knowing what fresh contributions will have to be paid when the new pensions scheme comes into operation. It is all very well for those with reasonable incomes and a fairly good stand of life—[An HON. MEMBER: "Those on the Treasury Bench."]—but it is very bad for those in lower income groups and those on small fixed incomes. They are worried to death.
It is quite wrong for the Leader of the House to press the Motion unless he is able to say that during this week—I am being much fairer than I usually am, for he has the whole week to do it—he will give an assurance that the Secretary of State will let us know before next Friday about this decision. Then we can tell our constituents exactly what their commitments will be. I hope that when the Leader of the House replies he will be able to say that he has persuaded whichever Minister is concerned—it may be Tweedledum, or Tweedledee, or neither of them, but Alice, or the Cheshire Cat, someone on the Treasury Bench—what the contributions are to be. I do not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the £420 million, did not know at the time of the Budget what is to happen when the scheme is introduced.
It is not right that the House should adjourn for Whitsun without being told the truth. This afternoon we are busy playing the "Truth Game". I do not know whether the Treasury Bench has ever played that game. It is a difficult game; sometimes when asked to tell the truth one would rather not do so. I think that this is what has happened to the Treasury Bench. Ministers want to get rid of us for this period because they do not want to tell the truth. That is not fair to the country. So I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies, instead of saying "Not next week", or "When we come back", he will have an answer ready. Then the House of Commons might feel that it has served the interests of the country much better than it has recently been able to do because the Treasury Bench has not been able to play the "Truth Game".
Many of us on this side, and I believe, some hon. Members opposite, want to know what is to happen about the container ships which are supposed to sail from ports in this country but are now to sail from Rotterdam. I do not think that it is in the interests of the economy, of international trade, of the people concerned, nor of the large amount of money and resources put by the shipping industry into the building of container ships, that we should go away for three weeks, or whatever time it is, not knowing what is to happen to our container

ships and whether they will be able to sail from ports in this country instead of from Rotterdam.
Those of us interested in shipping have tried very hard to give the Treasury Bench an opportunity to score a point about this. So that we could inform all interested in international trade, in invisible exports and balance of payments, we asked the Prime Minister to receive a deputation. The Prime Minister said that we could have a deputation to a very charming but completely junior Minister. I do not want to get at junior Ministers, but they cannot do anything. They always say politely that they will hand on the information and that the Prime Minister will get a report.
It is no good the Prime Minister getting a report; that is not like meeting a Minister face-to-face. I should be sorry to part with the face of the Leader of the House for three weeks. I enjoy looking at his face and I hope that he will produce answers for us this afternoon which are not dusty.
The Prime Minister turned this deputation, which affected vital interests in Great Britain, over to a junior Minister. The junior Minister was very nice, but all that he could do was to talk about the position in the docks and to say, "For goodness' sake don't muddy the waters". He knows very well that the Conservative Party is very much better at not muddying the waters than those on the Front Bench opposite. We did not get any further because he thought that the container ship should sail from the Port of Rotterdam, much to the adverse comment by foreign commercial interests who think that this country is going barmy. That is quite right so long as we have the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. We put forward our point of view—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Lady has indicated very effectively the importance of this subject, but she cannot debate it now on this Motion.

Dame Irene Ward: I do not want to debate it, but I would rather stand on my feet for the whole of the week, and I might do so if I were challenged, if I thought that I could get an answer. The Prime Minister is to answer a very important Question tomorrow by one of my hon. Friends. I want an assurance that the


Prime Minister will give us an answer which is an answer. It is not right, in the country's interests, that we should go away for the Recess without knowing what will happen about our container ships.
There is no end to any of these paths, because the Government can give no satisfactory answers about anything. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me some specific answers. I am not a politician. I am only a realistic person and I want to know the answer. It is easy to wrap things up. I know how wonderful it is for the Treasury Bench to get us all away—this is part of the exercise—but back benchers must resist the Treasury Bench. I am all for the back benchers getting control of the Executive. I do not mind whether it is my executive or anyone elses, but I want my say on subjects when people's interests are affected.
I never mind people disagreeing with me, because they have been doing so all my life, but it is very important that Parliament should be able to have its say when it wants to. For a lovely three weeks, we could have our say on our pet subjects, in the hope that we could get our answers. Therefore, at the moment, I oppose the Motion.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I am reluctant to agree to this Motion. I shall try not to comment on the merits of the case which I am seeking to put, but I should like the Leader of the House to take note of it.
On 23rd April, I asked the Home Secretary whether
… he will make a statement on the circumstances of the recent police raid on a house in Purley.
My right hon. Friend answered:
The statement and the results of the searches are now being assessed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23 April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 93.]
With unusual patience, I waited until 8th May before asking the Home Secretary
… whether he has now finally assessed the statement … and the results of the searches…
He replied:
I hope to be able to make a statement soon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1969; Vol. 783, C. 118.]

On 12th May, I asked my right hon. Friend
Whether he will give an undertaking that the forthcoming official statement on the case of Dr. A. E. Laurence will be made orally on the floor of the House.
My right hon Friend answered:
Yes. I shall, of course, be ready to answer any Question that is put down, in the normal way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 164]
That was a somewhat ambiguous and evasive reply, but let us pass over that for the time being.
On 15th May, I asked my right hon. Friend whether
… he will now make a statement on the case of Dr. A. E. Laurence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 1629.]
The Under-Secretary of State said that he was at present unable to add anything to what had already been said by the Home Secretary in reply to my previous Questions.
This case raises a number of serious issues and is surrounded by many dubious circumstances, as a result of which it is vital, in the public interest, that the Home Secretary should make a statement to the House. Dr. Laurence's solicitor rightly complained on 5th May that
The answers given by the Home Secretary to the questions that I have raised did little to clarify the affair of Dr. Laurence.
I understand, too, that on two separate occasions, 19th April and 7th May, the police handling the case told Dr. Laurence that he was in the clear. I do not know whether that is so, but, if it is, it is all the more surprising that the Home Secretary has not yet made a statement on the issue to the House.
I am not concerned with the merits of the case, either for or against Dr. Laurence. That is a matter on which the Home Secretary must make a decision, but I hope that it will be made or announced before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess.
The solicitor acting for Dr. Laurence has spoken of the "intolerable flood of suspicion" which followed the publicity given to the raid. Indeed, in a very short time after the first search warrant was issued—these warrants are issued only in closed court—the Press got to know about it, which strikes me as rather curious. If one is out to catch a spy, one does not inform the Press or have large numbers of people milling around the house for


a week before the man whom one is seeking to question arrives. The house began to look like Hampstead Heath on a bank holiday, with all the crowds of Pressmen and secret service agents and what-not trying to operate for whatever purposes they had in mind.
In these circumstances, I ask the Leader of the House to bring to the notice of the Home Secretary his own pledge that he will make an oral statement in the House in the very near future. It is over a month since the raid, and all the various factors in the case have now been examined. A bottle of aspirin and a tube of toothpaste which were taken from the house for examination have been returned to Dr. Laurence, as have all the other goods which ware taken from the house. So what we are waiting for is the promised statement by the Home Secretary.
I hope that my hon. Friend, whom I hold in the highest possible esteem, will bring to the Home Secretary's notice the urgent necessity of an oral statement, which should not be postponed until after the Christmas—the Whitsun Recess—[Laughter.] It might be postponed until after the Christmas Recess, for all I know. However, I hope that, before the House rises, the Home Secretary will be persuaded to keep his promise and make a statement on what is by all accounts, and in the general opinion of the public, a most disturbing state of affairs.

4.49 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: There are hardly any reasons given by hon. Members from both sides for our not rising next Friday for as long as is proposed with which I disagree. I merely wish to add one more. We should not rise before the Government have told the House when they will implement the recommendations of the Littlewood Report on experiments on live animals. This has been outstanding for four years last month, when the Report was published.
The Leader of the House takes a great interest in this problem, as a former Minister of Agriculture, who was directly connected with it. Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—if the latter is not too busy with other matters—to see whether, at long last, a statement cannot be made

about when we will have legislation on this very important topic?
The only other point I make—I hope to be able to keep within order—is for the assistance of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). My hon. Friend said that she would like to see the "Gnomes of Zurich". One Whitsun Recess, some years ago, on my way back from the Council of Europe, I visited Zurich. I wandered about the floor of the Zurich Stock Exchange. No one stopped me or took any notice of me. I presume that the gentlemen who were there were the "Gnomes of Zurich", or some of them. They looked like respectable Swiss citizens, not at all the gnomes I expected. If we are to have a Whitsun Recess, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth could pay a similar visit.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have not yet made up my mind whether to support the Motion. To some extent, my view will depend on the reply which we all hope to have from the Leader of the House.
Each week, the Leader of the House is asked for time to debate this or that Motion or subject which hon. Members regard as important, and each week he says, "Not this week", or, "Not next week"—or "Some time, never". If we were to persuade my right hon. Friend to cut short the Whitsun Adjournment, either by going away a little later or by coming back a little earlier, a number of Members on both sides might have opportunity to raise some of the points which they regard as of importance for both the House and the country. I shall now put certain of these items which I regard as of great interest.
First, I take the I.M.F. negotiations. These are an important subject for debate in themselves, but more important is the fact that on Tuesday, 13th May, the Chancellor said—it is on record in HANSARD—that no official approach had been made to the I.M.F. That seemed definite enough, but on the very same day an official statement was issued from our embassy in Washington saying that official approaches had been made. That raises a question which deserves an answer. Someone, somewhere, is not telling the whole truth.
I immediately absolve the Chancellor of the Exchequer from attempting to mislead the House. Neither he nor any other Minister deceives or has ever deceived the House at any time. [HON. MEMBERS "HON."] It is true. We know that no occupant of the Treasury Bench has ever misled the House. But a serious situation vis-à-vis our embassy in Washington is revealed. The ambassador must take responsibility for his staff, and he, by the way, is an ex-Treasury Minister, so we know that he cannot tell falsehoods, and never does. It means that someone on the embassy staff in Washington, however, may not be telling the truth.
There is a matter here which ought to be debated in the House. If we adjourn next week, the chances are that we shall not be able to debate it at all. But it should be debated soon, and a good occasion would be next week, or the week after. Perhaps we might shorten the Recess by a week to give that opportunity.
Tied up with the question of the I.M.F. negotiations is the question of our economic situation and the possibility of introducing import quotas and restrictions. Whether such a system is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. We cannot debate it on this Motion, but I submit that we ought to have a debate next week to ascertain whether one of the reasons why we are not having import quotas and restrictions is that, under the Brussels Treaty, such restrictive practices are not allowed, and the Government are anxious not to introduce import quotas and restrictions because they are trying to get into the Common Market. This is another matter which could be debated next week, to ascertain to what extent our economic difficulties are being exacerbated by the Government's wish to get on good terms with the Common Market countries.
Now, another important subject. It is already 12 months' old, and it affects many of our citizens, particularly people with limited incomes who live in the overcrowded areas. I refer to the trouble there has been in tall blocks of flats, the so-called tower blocks. Twelve months ago last week, there was a terrible disaster at Ronan Point, in West Ham, although, fortunately, the loss of life was

not as great as it might have been. The Government promised that a statement would be made setting out their intentions. They have said that these tower blocks must be strengthened in accordance with a proper system of safety precautions so that such disasters will not happen again.
That I welcome, but I have consistently been asking ever since where the money is to come from to pay for the necessary extra work. It is estimated that the total cost will be £3 or £3½ million throughout the country. That is a lot of money. Perhaps the £3½ million which the Secretary of State for Social Services is raising could be used for this purpose. If the House were to meet next week, I might have an opportunity to raise the matter in debate. The Government must say how the finance is to be found to strengthen these tower blocks, and Ronan Point, in particular, because the need is urgent.
I have mentioned the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sure that hon. Members of both sides would welcome an opportunity next week for the Secretary of State to make more of his statements to the House. Always, he is clear and concise in what he says. Always he puts forward his ideas with such lucidity that we have to put down Questions immediately to ask what he means. First, he told us of the increase in charges for teeth and spectacles, and the £3½ million thus raised was to go to the mental hospitals.
I supported that. I had on many occasions asked Questions about the lack of finance for mental hospitals. But, lo and behold, within a few hours he said that it was not for hospitals; it was for schools. Today, however, I heard him say that he did not say that it was for schools. We do not know what it is for. A sitting next week would give my right hon. Friend an opportunity to make a statement. It is an important matter. I see that the Leader of the House shakes his head as though he does not agree. But it is important.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I meant not next week.

Mr. Lewis: Not next week? That is why I am attempting to oppose the Motion. Every week, my right hon.


Friend says, "Not next week". If we were to sit next week, we could have a good bit of time to discuss these various subjects, and it would give the Leader of the House a chance of saying, for once, "Yes, next week"

Mr. Peyton: Should not the hon. Gentleman include in his catalogue of the virtues of the Secretary of State for Social Services the painstaking way in which he consults his colleagues beforehand?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman must not steal my thunder. That was at the back of my mind. Probably, before I had finished, it would have come to the front.
My right hon. Friend made a serious statement today. He said that he could not agree that the £3½ million should be given for this or that purpose because his Permanent Secretary would not permit him to do so. Perhaps the Leader of the House will find out whether any Permanent Secretary can tell a Minister what he must or must not do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in order in indicating what subjects he wants to raise. He is now in danger of debating it.

Mr. Lewis: That was not my intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely suggesting that perhaps next Monday or Tuesday the Secretary of State for Social Services could tell the House that he never intended to say that his Permanent Secretary could give him instructions about what he could or could not do. I always understood that it was the Minister who took these decisions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Motion is not carried, the hon. Gentleman may be able to put that to the Minister. But he cannot do it now.

Mr. Lewis: I will leave the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wish to deal with the remedy which the Government propose to adopt to stop these faux pas being made from week to week. If we go into recess for 16 days, I am not sure what the position will be. In those circumstances, it will not be possible for Ministers to make statements in the House. We may then get Press leaks—and we get them whether the

House is sitting or not. We may get even more Press leaks if we are in recess.
I understand that to stop Ministers continually make these mistakes the Paymaster-General is to vet the statements to see whether it is proposed to make them at the right time and in the right way. Can my right hon. Friend do that if the House is not sitting? There may be statements next week or the week after. If there are, I should have thought that the Paymaster-General would like to have the opportunity of making a statement to the House. If we are in recess, she will not be able to do that. This is another reason we should carefully consider whether we should go into recess.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), who spoke of Dr. Laurence, who, I think, is in East Grinstead, or somewhere like that, referred to the possibility of the Home Secretary making a statement. I am concerned that next week the Home Secretary should make a statement on the serious information disclosed to the country and the world that a man called Frank Mitchell, known notoriously as "the Mad Axeman", was able to use Dartmoor Prison as a hotel-cum-holiday camp and to live a miniature life of luxury. Whether that is true, I do not know. But if only half of what was said in court was true my right hon. Friend should explain next week what is happening in Dartmoor.
This is a serious matter. We send our worst criminals to Dartmoor. Apparently, no arrangement has been made for a statement to be made this week. We should not adjourn for 16 days on Friday, because if we do the Home Secretary will not be able to make a statement, even if he wishes to do so. A more important question is what is happening about Frank Mitchell. Where is he? I understand that the authorities are still looking for him. I should like to ask a question on this matter. I want a debate to be held next week to discover what action has been taken by the Home Secretary to trace this man. No one seems to know where he is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is coming close to the point at which he enumerates more subjects than can be discussed in the two weeks


which are the subject of the Motion. I must, therefore, rule him out of order.

Mr. Lewis: If we were sitting, we could suspend the rule each day. But the half dozen subjects which I have mentioned could be discussed within the 16 days even without the suspension of the rule.
Another important matter which could be discussed is the negotiations going on between the Prime Minister and the T.U.C.—"In Place of Strife" and all that. Will a statement be made next week on this matter? No doubt my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could get the Prime Minister to make a statement this week. If he says that he can, I will not need to oppose the Motion. It would help other hon. Members and myself in coming to a decision if we could be assured that a statement will be made.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward)—and I am sorry that she left as soon as she had made her speech—referred to nurses' salaries and meals. I have been interested in this question—long before the hon. Lady, incidentally, but that does not matter. Next week would be an admirable time to discuss this subject. I understand that some Ministers are to use part of the holiday, if the Motion is carried, in visiting hospitals in their constituencies. That is a very laudable undertaking, and I am pleased to hear about it. When they go, they might be offered a cup of tea or a sandwich, or even a meal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I am trying to explain, Mr. Speaker, that if the House were sitting the Ministers would not be able to go to the hospitals. They would have to be here. If the House were sitting they would probably have their meals here, for which they would pay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The question of nurses having to pay for their meals is vital. I believe in non-discrimination. Therefore, when

the Ministers visit the hospitals, they should pay for their meals—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can say that that is an issue on which he would like a debate, but he cannot debate it now.

Mr. Lewis: I am not suggesting a debate. If the Ministers go to these hospitals, they should bear in mind that if they have a cup of tea or a sandwich—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is debating the issue. He cannot do that on this Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I am not debating it. I am suggesting that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing in another form what I ruled was out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I am saying that I am not debating the issue, but am suggesting that this is one of the subjects which might be debated. I have not gone into detail. If I did, I could make a strong case. But I mention this subject, as I have a number of others. There are and could be a number I could mention as well. While it may be regrettable from the Chair's point of view that I am going on to mention a number of subjects—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not reflect on the actions of the Chair. The Chair has a responsibility to apply the Standing Orders and it is doing just that.

Mr. Lewis: I agree. I was going to explain that there are a number of subjects I would like to discuss if we were not to be in recess next week and the week after. I was pointing out, provided that I did not go into detail and discuss the merits of these subjects, that these are some of the subjects I would like to discuss.
There is another subject I would like to raise if the House were not in recess, and that concerns housing. We had a debate on housing recently, but it was not long enough for more than a few back benchers to take part. It is another subject which, if the Leader of the House were able to agree either to shortening the Recess or not having one at all, we could have an opportunity of discussing.
I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have expressed a desire that I should draw my remarks to a close. I will do so, but I say, in sitting down, that I know the attitude of Mr. Deputy Speaker from past experience and—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not reflect on the conduct of the Chair. He has sought to raise a large number of subjects. Other hon. Members are waiting to speak. He was getting out of order.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Hon. Members have raised a number of subjects as suitable for discussion if the House did not go into recess on Friday. We know that, at every opportunity on such a Motion, hon. Members put such points to the Leader of the House and that sometimes they have their tongues in their cheeks to some extent. On this occasion, however, there are a number of subjects which hon. Members sincerely feel we should debate rather than have two weeks' Recess.
While there may be conflicting views about how serious our economic situation is—and that is a matter of opinion—it is generally accepted that one thing we should be doing in this House is showing a sense of urgency about it. In these circumstances, it may be highly inappropriate to have a two-week Recess. During every debate of this sort I have ever listened to, hon. Members have suggested that we should not have a Recess because of the economic situation. This is not something which changes dramatically from time to time, but it is fair to say that we now have a rather unique situation in that it may not be a question of changing economic policy but of handing over the management of our economy to an outside organisation, the International Monetary Fund.
Faced with a major constitutional change which could take place during the next two weeks it is surely wrong for the House to go into recess for two weeks. There was, perhaps, a time when, irrespective of which party was in power, we could go away for a short Recess in the knowledge that there was a group of expert people who could steer the ship of

state, but our present experience is not the case.
Unfortunately, during the two weeks of Recess, there seems to be the possibility of a further major constitutional change concerning the policy of secrecy of Cabinet and Government meetings. It seems astonishing that, while the Government say that we cannot discuss this week, next week or the week after the question of the I.M.F. negotiations, confidentiality seems to have been thrown to the winds as far as Cabinet meetings are concerned. We have had from time to time leaks of one sort or another from the Cabinet, but at present we are getting them from the outer Cabinet, the inner Cabinet, the clique and the junta—all at the same time and giving different points of view. It is not in the interests of this country or of Parliamentary government to have a two-week Recess when there seems to be taking place a major constitutional change.
There are many other subjects we would like to discuss during the recess but I shall mention only one. The Leader of the House has been extremely helpful to me and other hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies when, on Thursdays, we have raised the question of the critical situation in the Clyde shipyards. He has been most courteous and helpful in agreeing to take every possible step to ensure that a statement would be made before the Recess.
At present, the Minister of Technology is in Russia and I understand that he arrives back tomorrow. I do not imply that he is neglecting his job by going abroad because we all know that he, above everyone else, has taken a direct personal interest in this matter. But we are being asked to go away for two weeks on Friday and we feel considerable concern that we may be doing so without a clear indication of the Government's policy towards the jobs of 14,000 men directly employed in the yards and another 50,000 men who depend indirectly on the yards for their employment.
I appreciate the difficulties and uncertainty, but I hope that the Leader of the House can tell us that a statement will be possible and that we may have some discussion on the matter before the House rises on Friday. We know the difficulties and problems, but I hope that the Government appreciate that, among thousands


of men on Clydeside, there is serious and continuing anxiety about their security. Before we agree to the Motion, the Government should clearly say when a statement will be made and in what form.
There are Questions down on the subject for tomorrow but last Wednesday, in answer to Questions, the Minister of Technology said he hoped to have a report from U.C.S. within a week or two. This, for the first time, brought up the possibility of not having a statement before the Recess. If, for some reason—and we understand the complexities—it is not possible to make a statement before the Recess, or indicate the Government's direction of policy, perhaps the Leader of the House, for the sake of the men of Clydeside, will at least keep an open mind towards the possibility of recalling the House during the Recess for half a day, say, should the occasion demand, or an emergency arise.

5.19 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House will not mind my intervening at this stage. I do not wish to close the debate, but I must attend the Committee of Privileges, as Chairman. Although I shall not be back before the debate closes, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio will be here and will reply to any point which may arise.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Does that mean that the Minister without Portfolio will reply to subsequent points raised by hon. Members?

Mr. Pearl: My right hon. Friend will reply and will inform me of what is said and convey the views expressed to the Ministers concerned.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for what he has said. I believe that hon. Members who have spoken have done so sincerely. They have put their points in the traditional way on this Motion and I make no complaint. I have been in the House for a long time and have done it myself. This enables the individual hon. Member to challenge the Executive and argue that the Motion should be opposed.
I am informed that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology will on Wednesday be answering Questions. I hope that he will by then be back from Moscow. His office has undertaken to raise with him as soon as possible the question of a further statement on the Upper Clyde shipyards. The hon. Gentleman put his point fairly, and I will keep in touch with him. I try to help, although there are times when it is not possible to do so.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) spoke of the creamery strike in South-West Scotland and the possibility of a shortage. I understand that he has today had a reply to a written Question on this subject, and that there will be no difficulties about liquid supplies. I accept that if the strike continues this will be a matter of importance to the agricultural industry.
Many hon. Members have raised individual matters quite shortly, but, generally, the main point that has been put forward is the desire of hon. Members on both sides to deal specifically with the negotiations now going on in Washington. I am sure that the House will accept the Chancellor's judgment that it would not be in the public interest to go further than his assurance that a full statement will be made to the House as soon as the current negotiations are completed. I cannot go beyond that.
Hon. Members will accept that such international negotiations cannot be conducted in public or by a debate, although they feel that there must be an opportunity for their views to be expressed at a time and in a manner which allows them to be taken into account before final decisions which will affect us all are taken.
I agree with this, but I would stress what I have said. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) stressed that this is an important matter which underlies our economic and financial strategy, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it plain that there will be nothing contrary to the policy outlined in his Budget speech.
Only four weeks ago we had the best part of a week's debate on these matters


and, more recently, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and, while skilfully managing to remain in order, many hon. Members have made their views perfectly plain. Another such debate would neither enlighten the House further nor add to the Government's information about views of hon. Members.
The Government have taken note of the views which have been expressed, and I hope that the House will accept the assurance that the Letter of Intent will be published, as in 1967. The Government must do the negotiating and take responsibility for the result, and the interests of hon. Members will best be served by deferring debate until the full facts are available.

Mr. David Mitchell: Does not the Leader of the House recognise that there has been a considerable change in the situation since we last debated the Budget Statement and the economic situation? Only last week the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an extraordinary change in his attitude about the substantial surplus which he expects. Instead of the substantial surplus being at the end of the calendar year, he now expects it to be at the end of the financial year, thus deferring for another four months the day when we can expect to see a surplus. This is a very important difference.

Mr. Peart: I do not want to get involved in an argument about this, as it would be out of order. I have noted carefully what the hon. Member has said and, to use the traditional formula, I will convey his views to the Chancellor, but, for the reasons I have given, I hope that the Motion will not be opposed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) rightly raised the case of Dr. Laurence. I know the problems here. I understand that a statement may be made this week. I will do what I can in this matter.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) raised the whole question of announcing writs for the by-elections, stressing Swindon. An hon. Member who represents the Liberal interests added Birmingham, Ladywood, and I suspect that I know the reason. This is a matter for the Patronage Secretary,

not for me. No doubt he will have have heard what has been said. Although he was not on the Front Bench, he was in the Chamber. I was asked about this last week, and I am aware of the views of hon. Members. A time lag of this kind is not unusual; it has happened during the reign of many other Administrations. I do not want to argue the merits—

Mr. Sharples: Does the Leader of the House realise that there is a special situation in Swindon? This constituency has been virtually without a Member since February, 1968—and I attach no blame for this to Mr. Francis Noel-Baker.

Mr. Peart: My right hon. Friend the Chief Patronage Secretary and I are aware of the problems which arise from the illness of the hon. Member who represented this constituency.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made a characteristically forceful contribution about the Industrial Relations Bill. He wanted to know about a dialogue between the Government and the Trades Union Congress. He must wait for the Bill. Negotiations are going on. I had hoped that the Bill would be produced before Whitsun, but, as I said at Question Time last week, this is not possible. The Bill will now be produced after Whitsun, but in the meantime negotiations will take place between my right hon. Friend and the T.U.C.
Steel prices have been under consideration by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher) wanted a debate on the Hunt Report, so that our collective wisdom could be expressed before discussions took place with the regional planning councils. The Government's view, now that the Report has been published, is that the people in the regions who are responsible for regional planning and who know the area should be allowed to express their views on the proposals. We could probably have a debate after that, but not during the Whitsun period. The discussions will take much longer.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) raised the matter of Anguilla. I have a long list of occasions on which


the Anguilla situation has been raised in the House, and the House has had a good deal of information. The House debated Anguilla on 26th March and 23rd April. Numerous Questions on the subject have been answered by Ministers, including Questions asked today.
I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has already told the House. I understand that the hon. Member for Banbury made certain assertions because he hoped that I would respond to him and give information. However, if I were to do that I would be debating the matter and would be out of order. For that reason it is not a strong argument that, because of the situation in Anguilla, we should delay our Recess.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has any statement been made or Question been answered since the visit of Mr. Bradshaw?

Mr. Peart: There was a Question down today. I am saying that the matter has been raised very effectively, as I am sure hon. Members will agree.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), who, like myself, represents a northern constituency, dealt in her characteristic way with the personality of myself and that of my predecessor. It is true that on many occasions, and in different ways, I say "Not next week". It is concise, people know what it means, and it is effective. Why elaborate?
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not as yet met the gnomes of Zurich. If she is willing to give up her weekend, she could easily meet them. She could go to Geneva if she wished. The fortnight Recess may be effective for many hon. Members to travel abroad.
The hon. Lady raised an important point in relation to the National Health Service. When I convey strongly her point of view, which was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I will say that it is time we had a statement on this matter, even though I know there has been resistance. We all agree that the individual nurse plays an important part in the National Health Service.

Dame Irene Ward: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean when he spoke of

resistance? I shall be interested to hear whether he is going to resist his own Minister.

Mr. Peart: I was not saying that. I thought the hon. Lady said that there had been resistance. I was assuming what she said to be right. I said I would convey strongly her point of view to colleagues who are concerned. I cannot go beyond that.
I was amused when the hon. Lady said that she was not a politician. I have always thought her to be a most effective politician.
The hon. Lady also mentioned container ships. There is likely to be a Question to the Minister concerned.
I will not go into the details of the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North. He raised many matters among the reasons for wanting a shorter Recess. He mentioned tall flats, social services, Press co-ordination, and the case of Mr. Mitchell, and demanded a statement from the Home Secretary. He also pleaded with me to get the Prime Minister to make a statement on discussions on "In Place of Strife", and he dealt with nurses' pay and housing. He rightly raised those most important issues, but I am sure that there will be many opportunities to raise them, after he has returned from his holiday—and I hope that he has a good one.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend look into the vital matter of the Ronan Point disaster? We were promised a statement some 12 months ago and are still waiting.

Mr. Peart: My memory may be wrong on that matter, so I will not be dogmatic. I will accept the point of my hon. Friend, and will raise the matter with the Housing Minister.
The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) mentioned the implementation of the Littlewood Report. From my past experience in the agricultural Ministry, I have great sympathy with his point of view. I know that the matter has been raised by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) on many occasions. I will have a word with the Minister concerned and with the Home Secretary. It is not an easy matter, but I will take it up.
I have tried to answer quickly some of the points which have been raised. I will now leave the debate to my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving replies to certain questions before dashing away to the Committee of Privileges. We are also grateful that his right hon. Friend will remain to deal with questions which we now wish to raise.
A number of questions worry me in view of the possibility of our adjourning for 16 days. The first, and most important, is that I do not trust this Government to govern the country effectively.
I am not alone in that feeling. The gnomes of Zurich and the members of the I.M.F., the bailiff's men, come over here from time to time to see how the Government are doing. The electorate have made their view clear. In by-elections and local elections it has been shown that voters share my anxiety and distrust for this Government. It is bad enough that they express distrust when the Government are governing the country with the House of Commons sitting at Westminster watching them. But I am sure they feel even more, as I do, the danger of allowing this lot to continue for 16 days without the House of Commons here to keep an eye on them. I have expressed this anxiety on other occasions, and it comes before all others in my mind.
We have heard a good deal about the Letter of Intent. The Leader of the House said that we have had a debate on the Budget speech. But when we had that debate we thought that only £340 million in taxation was sought in a full year. We have since learned that there is an additional £430 million on top of that to be found from direct taxation of the people of this country. It makes it one of the heaviest Budgets in history. It is not a good enough reason to say that because we have had a debate on the Budget there is no need to debate the economic situation.
We have heard a great deal about the Letter of Intent. But when it does arrive what will it amount to? I suspect that it will be a cover-up for something else.

Indeed, I feel that there will be some secret or, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would say, unannounced understanding behind the scenes which is even more restrictive than the Letter of Intent.
In view of the fact that the Government in the last 4½ years have landed the country in external debt exceeding £3,000 million, which amounts to over £50 of additional debt for every man woman and child in the country, and they are now talking about negotiating a further £400 million of debt—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going into the merits of the matter rather than dealing with the Motion before the House.

Mr. Goodhew: I would not wish to go too wide. I was pointing out that there is particular cause for worry about our running into a further £400 million debt when we are already £3,000 million in debt. I will leave the matter there.
There is then the question of how the charges to pay for the new increased pensions which are to be paid in the autumn are to be met. All we know so far is that these will cost another £430 million. That includes not only the increases but the deficit which already exists on the account. We do not know how the £430 million will be spread over employers and employees.
Industry is in the situation that, just as it is getting used to the 50 per cent. increase in S.E.T. imposed last autumn, it now has to adjust its arrangements to meet a further 28 per cent. increase in S.E.T. Furthermore, industry does not know what charges are to be imposed as between employers and employees. This is a reason that we should debate this matter so that we may have a statement to enable people to arrange their budgets accordingly.
Mention has been made today of trade union reform. We understand that there is to be no announcement until after the Recess. We understand also that there is to be an attempt by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to come to some "copper-bottomed compromise", whatever that is. What we fear is that she may come to some compromise which we do not regard as being as "copper-bottomed" as she does. We


have in mind the fact that her speech during the debate on the Budget accounted for only five of the 24 points in the White Paper "In Place of Strife", and we see the proposed legislation being watered down before we have a chance of seeing what is proposed. We feel strongly that this, too, is another reason for not adjourning for 16 days.
Then there is the general subject of the responsibility of the Paymaster-General. When a member of the Government comes out publicly and says that things have gone very badly but that from now on she will ensure that the public are misled about what the Government are doing by making sure that the timing of any announcement sees to it that people do not understand what is going on, that seems to be a matter which should be debated in the House.
Even more important is the subject of Rhodesia. We know that events are reaching a very dangerous point in Rhodesia and that there is every possibility before we return after our Recess of a referendum being held there at which Rhodesians will decide whether to become a republic. Once that referendum is held, the chance of coming to an honourable settlement will have been thrown out of the window. I understand that proposals have been sent to Her Majesty's Government by Mr. Ian Smith, and it would seem to me that we should debate the matter before we go into the recess rather than risk the Government throwing away the chance of a settlement. I say that particularly because of the publicity given in our newspapers to the Centre Party and knowing the Prime Minister's reputation as a wishful thinker who always assumes that what he would like to happen will happen.
Then there is the visit of the Minister of Technology to Moscow. I think the House would have liked an opportunity to discover whether he was to ask about Mr. Gerald Brooke. I do not consider that he should have gone to Moscow to discuss exchanges of technological information. I should have thought that the Government would want assurances about Mr. Brooke before they discussed anything with the Russian Government, and I should have liked a debate on the matter.
Then there is an urgent need for a debate on Private Members' Bills and the so-called neutrality of the Government

on certain great moral issues. There are reports that after Whitsun Government time will be given late at night, after the normal ending of the Business of the House, to debate the Divorce Reform Bill. I was taken to task when I said that it was humbug of the Solicitor-General to talk about the Government's neutrality on the Bill, and I referred to previous cases, such as the abolition of capital punishment, abortion law reform and homosexual law reform, where this Government provided time for the debating of these matters. Before we give any further consideration to the Divorce Reform Bill, I am certain that we should debate whether any Government have the right to remove the only safeguard of hon. Members who oppose legislation, which is delay. If the Government bend the rules, they take away that right from any opposition. They take away the delaying weapon by rigging the rules and providing additional time at night for the discussion of great moral issues. This is a disgraceful state of affairs, and it should be debated before we go into Recess.
I come finally to the question of nurses' pay. This is yet another matter upon which we should have a statement. It becomes even more important when one remembers that the Minister of Defence said in his recent White Paper and in the debate on the Defence Estimates that the National Board for Prices and Incomes is busy preparing a report on Service pay in which there is the possibility of a suggestion about military salaries and deductions in respect of food, accommodation and so on. With the chaos in the nursing profession as an example, I hope we can have a debate, even if it serves only to persuade the Minister of Defence not to make the same mistake in the Services, which have such a serious recruiting problem.
I hope that I have made enough points to impress upon the House that there are many important matter which should be debated rather than that this House should go into recess for 16 days. Above all, I do not trust this Government to govern the country effectively when we are here. When we are not here, heaven help us.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am sorry to have to intervene,


but several points have been made and I think that I should put my views on some of them on the record.
The only part of the speech of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Good-hew) with which I agree was that in which he dealt with the provision of time by the Government to those who stand for the extension of permissiveness and who wish to introduce a Measure with which the vast majority of people do not agree.
As an engineer, I think of the ways in which, technically and scientifically, we can produce ever higher material standards for every individual, and I am certain that we also need higher moral standards. The more wealthy one becomes, the more one needs culture and morality. I shall always oppose abortion, easy divorce and all the other matters that go with permissiveness. It has been a matter of regret to me that on two occasions Government time has been provided for the examination of these problems. However, I always get my opportunity to oppose them, and I rest content with that. There are opportunities, too, to campaign against them in my constituency, and those opportunities come in every recess. It is for that reason that I would like to see longer recesses. There should be sufficient time for hon. Members to warn their constituents against these extensions of permissiveness.
It does not matter which Government are in power. The individual lives of our citizens are more and more affected by legislation which is administered by the bureaucracy. Ever since becoming a Member of this House, I have considered it one of my primary duties to protect the individual citizen from the possible result of the bureaucracy administering laws presented to any eventually approved by this Chamber.
There is an idea in this country that the main work of a Member of Parliament is done in this Chamber. However, if we pretend that this Chamber is what matters and that it should always be open, visitors to the public gallery seeing 20 or 30 of us sitting here will think that it is a pretty soft job.
The main function of a Member of Parliament very often is performed when Parliament is in recess and he is in his

constituency. Recesses should be longer, because there is so much intervention by the State in people's day to day affairs that they need the protection of their Members of Parliament. The difficulty is that we cannot get to our constituencies often enough. We have to be here on three-line whips. The position is becoming intolerable. Readers of political history will know that in the nineteenth century Members of Parliament spent far more time in their constituencies than we do. One cannot learn what is happening in the country by taking part in an intellectual exercise in this Chamber.
The government of this country is something more than an intellectual pastime. With the degree of State intervention that we have, a Member of Parliament can be of far more use getting around and seeing his constituents. When this place is shut up it is still very easy to get in contact with, for instance, the Department of Education and Science or the Foreign Office. As a Member of Parliament one can always contact the heads of Departments or Ministers of the Crown because members of the Government do not go into recess; only this Chamber goes into recess.

An Hon. Member: The hon. Gentleman should not kid himself.

Mr. Bence: They have a week's holiday or a few days. A Member of Parliament can go from this place and spend 16 days in his constituency. I think it should be three weeks so that he can get around to every village in a county constituency or every street in a borough to find out what is happening. He ought to be able to get around to the old-age pensioners and the business community to find out what is happening. He can then get in touch with the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and so on. A Member of Parliament can work twice as hard in those 16 days than if he has to come here.
Let us be frank. Many of us here this afternoon would be far more usefully employed in our constituencies. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned the Upper Clyde shipbuilders. The Leader of the House has, quite rightly, promised that we shall be having some information about this development. This is a very important issue for the Clyde. My hon.


Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) has worked like a slave in the last six weeks—not in this House—trying to solve the Upper Clyde shipbuilders' problem. He has been around the shipyards on the Clyde meeting management and men. He has been doing everything that he possibly can. Hon. Members have not heard him here, but they have heard him on the Clyde. This is important. My hon. Friend is fortunate in being able to get away, but this recess will give him greater opportunities. Hon. Members with interests in the Clyde area will also have greater opportunities to get around the Clyde to examine the situation.
We should spend more of our time out in the country. We spend far too much time here. This is a debating chamber for intellectual exercises. Many hon. Members enjoy the cut and thrust of debate, like the old Oxford Union. It is great stuff and I enjoy it, but an essential of democracy is that we should have not only a free Press but Members of Parliament free to get around their constituencies, free to contact anybody and everybody, and then come back and put Questions on the Order Paper. This is all part of the process. The trouble is that the recesses are not long enough. If I were to put a Motion on the Order Paper it would be to extend them. I could watch what the Government are doing better from out in the country than from here. My constituents give me their reactions—[Interruption.]—I did not catch that. I wish I had.
I am glad that the recess is to be for 16 days, but I wish it were for 26 days. We must not kid the people of this country that because this Chamber is sitting the essentials of democracy are functioning. Democracy spreads much further than this Chamber.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I suppose he will either be seeking leave to amend the Motion before the House because he wants the recess to be longer or he will vote against it because he considers the length of the recess proposed by Her Majesty's Government entirely inadequate.
I should like to support most strongly what he said following my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr.

Goodhew) about the strange matter of the Divorce Reform Bill. It is astonishing that Members of Parliament should have to learn from the Press what are the Government's intentions. It seems that we are to go away for this Recess without the Government telling us what is intended about this Bill, which many of us bitterly oppose and which we believe the majority of people in this country bitterly oppose. If this Measure is wanted by the Government as a matter of social reform and public policy, they should have the guts to adopt it. They should not shelter behind private Members so that they can have it both ways: the want to put through this unwanted permissive legislation and then pretend it was nothing to do with them. They have had the experience of the Abortion Act. The Secretary of State responsible is now deeply anxious about that.

Mr. George Willis: What has this to do with the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will try to indicate what it has to do with it. I am asking for a clear statement from the Government whether they intend to give their support to this Measure, which we understand, if the rumours and Press reports are correct, is to come up shortly after the recess. Therefore, it is only fair that the House should be informed, before it rises for the Recess, what is intended. I do not wish to go further—

Mr. James A. Dunn: Perhaps it would be better to extend the recess and come back at the end of June, so that this obnoxious Bill should not get through the House.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That is a very interesting, constructive and ingenious suggestion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should consult his hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East and try to seek leave to amend the Motion—a manuscript Amendment might be submitted—to extend the Recess.
On other grounds I am reluctant to go away without assurances on various matters. I do not think the situation of this country justifies us in having a holiday of this length.
I do not wish to go further into the matter of permissive legislation, which the


Socialist Government supports without having the courage to admit it, because, as has been made clear from the Chair, this is a narrow debate. We are circumscribed in what we say. We are not allowed to discuss the merits of Government policy, even if there were any merits in Government policy.
I was a little encouraged by what Mr. Speaker said when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was raising the topic of Anguilla. Mr. Speaker suggested that my hon. Friend should not enter into the merits of the subject of Anguilla as there might conceivably be a debate on that subject on Whit Monday if my hon. Friend got his way. I am not sure whether Mr. Speaker was entirely serious about that.
I thought the Leader of the House gave a curious reason why we should not press Anguilla. He said there had been so many Questions about it in the House. Exactly. There are so many Questions asked because the answers which we get are either unsatisfactory or uninformative. I asked the Leader of the House whether any Questions had been answered or any statement made subsequent to the important visit to this country of Mr. Bradshaw. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio, who is very much conversant with Commonwealth matters, will be able to give a clear answer about that.
There are other Commonwealth matters which weigh very heavily on the minds and consciences of hon. Members and are of deep concern to our constituents. The horror of Biafra goes on. There seems no end to it. This is a matter which deeply touches the feelings, particularly those of our younger constituents. The "quick kill" in Biafra seems about as quick as the overcoming of the resistance of Mr. Ian Smith—the weeks, not months, of which the Prime Minister spoke. Anyway, the carnage goes on. There is no end in sight.
Nothing has been said about Malaysia, a Commonwealth country in respect of which we have vast investments, historic friendship and deep concern. There are many British subjects there. Her Majesty's Forces are there. The situation seems to get a bit better one day, and then we are not so sure. But I shall not press this matter, because I have

Questions down for Written Answer on the position in Malaysia, and I know that if the Minister without Portfolio has anything to do with it he will do his best to see that the House is kept informed on this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans said that it was unsatisfactory for us to go away without our being told anything about the Rhodesia situation. I do not want to enter into the merits of this. I do not wish to raise the temperature of this very businesslike debate, but the Prime Minister's answer to my Question last week was really not enough. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to use the opportunity of raising great excitement without dealing with the important matter of what the Government are doing to avert the drift into a republic and the separation from Britain of Rhodesia.
We understand that certain proposals have been made by Mr. Ian Smith to Her Majesty's Government. We also understand that no reply has been given by the Prime Minister to Mr. Ian Smith. Meanwhile, the situation is going from bad to worse. Britain and Rhodesia are drifting farther apart. The Minister without Portfoilo knows as much about this matter as anyone, and I hope that he can give us some reassurance about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans mentioned the visit of the Minister of Technology to the U.S.S.R. We are not clear whether the Minister will be back in this country before we rise for the Recess, assuming that the Motion is passed. My hon. Friend also asked whether the Minister of Technology had seen fit to raise the question of Gerald Brooke. I have not seen a full report, but I noticed a very disturbing speech which the Minister made in Moscow, Part of the speech may have been very good—I do not know—but the part which was briefly reported in this country was to the effect that everything that had been done by our ancestors in the British Empire was harmful not only to the peoples of the British Empire, but to the people of this island. This seems a curious speech to be made by a British Minister when visiting the U.S.S.R. Perhaps the Minister without Portfolio can assure me that his right hon. Friend was misreported.
When I go overseas I try to be meticulous not to attack my Government and


not to attack the record of my country, and it is a bit much to hear of this being done by a Minister of the Crown. If there had been no British Empire, there would be no Commonwealth today. Without going any further into the merits of that, it is a bit much for a British Minister—if his speech has been correctly reported—to go to Moscow, the capital of the greatest colonial empire of our time, and a very oppressive colonial empire at that, and then decry what has been done in the British Empire. I hope that we can have a clear statement or refutation before we rise, and that, if possible, we can have that from the Minister without Portfolio when he replies to the debate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) and with my hon. Friends the Members for St. Albans, and Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) that the position about the I.M.F. and the Letter of Intent is not satisfactory. We understand, of course, that under our constitution Ministers enter into agreements with foreign powers and international institutions and it is then for Parliament to pronounce upon them. But we are in a different situation nowadays. We are in a situation where no one trusts Her Majesty's Government to defend the British interests. This mistrust is not confined to Her Majesty's Opposition. It is keenly felt on the other side of the House as well. It is not enough for us to be told that when the Letter of Intent has been published, when the matter is completed, we shall be able to pronounce upon it. That will be too late. We ought to be able to have our say and make our voices heard on behalf of our constituents before the Whitsun Recess.
Again, there is the curious situation about the contributions to pay for the increased pensions. This muddle appears to have arisen because of the opportunism of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who wanted to soften the shock of his Budget, the too clever incompetence of the Secretary of State, and the chaos in a discredited Cabinet presided over by a Prime Minister who has been found out.
But there is a practical matter involved, and it was referred to at Question Time today. Employers of labour want to know how to plan the future of their businesses. They cannot do that unless they know what is to be the employer's

contribution. We should therefore like from the Government before we go away for the Recess a clear statement on how the increased pensions are to be paid for. The Leader of the House made a very courteous and helpful intervention. As usual, he said that he would convey our views to those responsible in the Government. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wonderful at this "conveyancing" job. The trouble is that when our views have been conveyed that seems to be the end of it.
This debate has shown, and the speeches on both sides have shown—this is not just an Opposition manoeuvre—that hon. Members resent not being taken into the confidence of the Executive. The Prime Minister says he knows what is going on. He may, but I sometimes doubt it. We, however, do not know what is going on, and that is really the burden of our complaint. The Prime Minister says that he is going on and on. On and on and up and up! I recall Ramsay Macdonald who landed this country in rather a similar plight to the plight in which we find ourselves today. We do not want to hear that the Prime Minister is going on. We want to hear that he is going to the country and going out.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: There are two matters about which I should like reassurance before we agree to the Motion. The first is one which has been discussed by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, the question of the Letter of Intent. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said about why we should not have a debate on the Letter of Intent before we rise for the Whitsun Recess, or, alternatively, why we should not shorten the Whitsun Recess to enable such a debate to take place before the Letter of Intent was signed, sealed, and delivered, after which we could debate it.
The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the arguments which have been pressed upon him, the essence of which is not that the Government should be required to state what their policies are in the midst of a negotiation, but that hon. Members on both sides of the House should have an opportunity to express their views about what the outcome of the negotiations should be. This seems to


be a correct constitutional doctrine, and to argue, as the Leader of the House did, and as has been argued before by the Chancellor and other Ministers, that we should not have a debate on this matter before the Whitsun Recess, or during what should have been the Whitsun Recess, because the Letter of Intent is in the nature of an international treaty seems to overlook two points.
First, we have precedents for discussing international treaties which are in the process of negotiation. I recall to the Minister the example of the Common Market negotiations. Many of us would argue that the concessions to sovereignty contemplated in the Letter of Intent are likely to be infinitely more far-reaching than anything—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is now debating the merits of the matter that he presents. He cannot do that on this Motion.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I should have said that many of us would like to have the opportunity to argue that the concessions of sovereignty involved in the Letter of Intent will be infinitely more far-reaching than anything that has gone before.
I want to put to the Minister the argument that we should have the debate either before we rise for the recess or at the end of a foreshortened recess from a point of view diametrically opposite to that advanced by hon. Members opposite. I argue that we must have the most stringent control imposed on the Government by the I.M.F. through the Letter of Intent. The difficulty about this argument is that whereas hon. Members opposite who might want to complain that the Letter of Intent is too stringent will have an opportunity of voting against it—if they dare—those who feel that the Letter is likely to be much too lenient will not have the opportunity to vote against it, because the negotiations by then will have been completed and any possibility of making the Letter more stringent will have passed away. That is my argument for saying that those who are in favour of a more stringent Letter of Intent than might otherwise be forthcoming have a stronger case for demanding a debate before we rise or after a foreshortened Whit-sun Recess.
My second point concerns an entirely different matter but one that may be within the cognisance of the Minister without Portfolio. I refer to the crisis that has arisen in Scotland over the decision of between 9,000 and 10,000 teachers not to re-register, since 1st April, with the General Teaching Council, and hence to face immediate dismissal. These are qualified and experienced teachers. If the Government carried out the letter of the law by dismissing those teachers the education system in Scotland would collapse.
The urgent need of having a full statement on this matter before we rise for the Whitsun Recess arises from the fact that we face the problem either of the collapse of the schooling system in Scotland or a very grave miscarriage of justice. Approximately 20 of these qualified and experienced teachers have already been sacked for failing to register last year. If the rest of the teachers are not sacked for failing to register by 1st May, when the date for re-registration is up, a positively intolerable situation will be created for the 20 teachers who have already been sacked. I submit that this is a matter of considerable urgency, about which we must have a statement before the Houses rises for Whitsun.
I raised this matter in a business Question last week and asked the Leader of the House to provide us with an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland before we rose. The Leader of the House said:
Since the hon. Member raised this matter, I have looked carefully into it and conveyed his views to my right hon. Friend. I see that there is a Written Question down for answer tomorrow and I believe that the hon. Member himself has a Question down for oral answer on Wednesday. Let us wait for the Answers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 1652]
It will surprise the Minister without Portfolio to know that the Answer received to the Written Question on Friday was that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office had nothing to add to the answer given to me three weeks before. That carries us no further.
It is true that I have an oral Question down for Wednesday, but it is unlikely that it will be reached in the normal course of events. I therefore ask the


Minister to impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Leader of the House the necessity for the Secretary of State, if need be, to take the Question out of order and give us a full statement at the end of Questions on Wednesday. We cannot go into recess while a situation exists in which the whole teaching profession in Scotland is in total confusion and has no idea of Government policy in a situation which is entirely of the Government's own contriving.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I apologise to the House for having left it for a short time. Unfortunately, I had an important Committee of the House upstairs.
It is incredible that the House should be thinking of going away for 16 days at Whitsun. The public will believe that we do not understand their reactions. They are aware that this country is going through one of the most serious financial crises that it has ever experienced. They know that this is not the first crisis, but one of about four or five in recent years. They know that we have borrowed up to the hilt overseas, and that at present discussions and arguments are going on about a further loan. For the House to go away for 16 days' holiday while that situation exists is incredible. No wonder the public think so little of Members of Parliament today. Our duty is to be here, finding out from the Government what is going on.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, although we do not want to enter into the pros and cons of this Letter of Intent, the House has a right to demand from the Government that we shall have a debate so that the views of my hon. Friend can be put forward; namely, that the Letters of Intent should be much stronger. Other hon. Members—probably this applies to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dickens), who spoke earlier—think that the Letter should be weaker. At least the House should be told what is happening, and the Government and other people should know the views of Members of Parliament on a situation that will affect every man, woman and child. We should not be going away for a holiday until we have made our position clear. So far, we have been unable

to do this owing to the rules of the House.
It is incredible that the Government have not devoted one day in this week to explaining their financial and economic policy to the House once more, and explaining what they propose to do to make the Budget more relevant to the new situation that has developed and to let the public know how they propose to deal with it. We should not give the Government permission to adjourn the House until we have had a statement or a debate on this important subject. If the Motion goes to a Division I shall have no difficulty in voting against it.
Another matter on which the House should demand a statement from the Government, or on which the Government should have a debate in order to let the House know what they are proposing to do, is the question of the Boundary Commission. That Commission has now reported. The facts are in the Government's hands; so far they have made no declaration to the House. But this is exactly the time of year when those Members whose constituencies will be affected by boundary changes will have an opportunity of talking to many of their constituents and the time when they should be able to announce whether or not the boundaries of their constituencies are going to be changed for the next election. The Government have a duty to make an announcement before the House rises for the recess. If we are not to have that statement we should be here next week debating the matter and finding out why the Government are so loth to bring forward their proposals in this matter.
This also applies to the three pending by-elections. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) said, if the dates of these elections are not announced this week—it does not look as though they will be—they will not be announced until after 9th June and the elections will not be held, because of the summer holidays, until the autumn. Hon. Members opposite are great people for talking about "one man, one vote", and saying that people should be represented in Parliament, yet they are deliberately depriving about 200,000 electors of representation for an unduly long time. Before we give


the Government this Motion, we should have a statement about when these by-elections are to take place. If we do not get that statement, the Government should not get their Motion.
Another matter is the pensions increase and the statement last week about what the individual will have to pay. Our constituents will ask us about this, and we shall not be able to give them any information. So hon. Members would be better employed in pressing the Government for this information rather than being in their constituencies. However much we like the idea of increased pensions, what little has been said suggests that the operation of these increases will cause the I.M.F. to take umbrage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the increase now. The hon. Gentleman can make these points in his speech if he gets his wish and the House does not rise for Whitsun.

Sir D. Glover: This division of view is another reason for a debate on the economic situation and on how the raising of this money will fit in with the Government's present depressive policy. Otherwise we shall go away without knowing the Government's intentions.
The Government want 16 days' respite to get their nerve and some clear thinking back. The age of miracles is not yet past, but that miracle will not happen, any more than the economic miracle did. They will not get their morale or their wisdom back. This Government are discredited in the House and the country, and the sooner they go, the better for all concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter, too, can be debated if, by dividing the House successfully, the hon. Gentleman brings us back next week.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I wish to oppose the Motion, by supporting most of what has already been said, but also by raising two other comparatively minor points on which I should like statements before the Recess.
First, what is happening at Her Majesty's Stationery Office? For some weeks now we have been deprived of our daily HANSARD, delivered to our homes through the miracle workings of the

Official Reporters upstairs. Now, when I want a copy of the Report of the Edwards Committee on the aircraft industry, for which we have been waiting for 18 months, I cannot get one.
The Government should tell us what is preventing the distribution of these important documents and say when we can hope for the previous miracles of distribution to be resumed, and what exactly is holding up the resumption of full-time work at that Office. This is of great interest to all hon. Members, including, I venture to suggest, you yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the Government have told us nothing in recent days. May we have a statement on the position before the Recess?
The second item is, perhaps, a little more esoteric. I object to a Recess beginning at the end of this week because of the refusal of the Secretary of State for Social Services to amend the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations. 1966—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate now a matter which he would like to debate if we came back on Whit Monday.

Mr. Fortescue: I had no intention of doing so, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest that we should have a statement on this matter before the Recess, because it has introduced a new constitutional principle into our affairs which should be objected to. I will not drift into the merits, but should like, if I may, to outline the facts. The fact is that Regulation No. 27 provides that anyone who lives more than one mile from a chemist can have his prescription medicines dispensed by his doctor. This Regulation dates from 1911—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Member is doing what I asked him not to do. He is debating what he is eager to debate when we have abolished the Whitsun holiday.

Mr. Fortescue: With far greater respect, Mr. Speaker, I am stating facts, not debating merits. I am stating the facts of the situation, on which I want a statement from the Government if I am to support their Motion. As I say, the Regulation dates from 1911 and it was very important at a time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even facts are parts of some debates, even if debates do not always contain facts, but the hon. Member cannot debate this Regulation tonight.

Mr. Fortescue: If I may not state facts or merits, it is very difficult for me to say anything at all, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that would be your wish. But perhaps I may rapidly come to the point, which might be incomprehensible to the Minister without Portfolio without the background facts.
A decision had been reached by the present Secretary of State's predecessor that this Regulation should be amended, but, when the new Minister came to office, he consulted the medical profession, which was opposed to this Amendment, and rescinded that decision. This was done when all the medical profession and the whole of the judgment—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is going into the merits of the subject which the hon. Gentleman wishes to debate. He should have listened to what has taken place already. This is a narrow debate. We are debating whether to break up on Friday for a Whitsun holiday and he must advance reasons for not doing so. He may not debate what he would like to debate if we came back.

Mr. Fortescue: With the very greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here since 3.30 p.m. and I have listened to all your Rulings with great attention and respect and have noted how every hon. Member has contrived to make his point. I am trying to emulate my more experienced colleagues in this respect. I shall be brief.
In reaching this decision, the Secretary of State should have made a statement to the House. He has not done so, and before we go into Recess—if we do—he should come here and make a statement on this difficult and pressing matter.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I press the Government to announce a date for the Swindon by-election before the Whitsun Recess. Fifteen months have elapsed since Mr. Francis Noel-Baker announced his intention to resign from the House and, although only two months have passed since he actually resigned, the electorate of Swindon will

be unrepresented in Parliament for a considerable time unless the Government announce the date of the by-election. I appreciate that Mr. Noel-Baker made interim arrangements for—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate the reasons for the forthcoming by-election on this Motion.

Mr. Morrison: I grant that two months is not a long time for a constituency to be without an hon. Member, but if the Government do not announce the date of the by-election before the Whitsun Recess it will mean that the last possible date for that announcement to be made before the Summer Recess will be 9th June. Thursday, 26th June, will be the last possible date for a by-election to take place in Swindon before the Summer Recess, because the Swindon factory holidays begin on 3rd July. Thus, a by-election will be precluded from taking place until October unless the Government announce the date either within the next few days or on 9th June.
I am sure that the Government have no wish to disfranchise the electors of Swindon from, say, March until October. That would be an inordinate length of time for any constituency to be without an hon. Member. I hope, therefore, that the Government will realise the strength of the argument in favour of making an early announcement of this date so that once again Swindon may be represented in this House.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: I would be reluctant to support the Motion without an assurance that the Secretary of State for Social Services will make a statement on the conditions of pay and service in the nursing profession. We should also be told what is finally to happen to the additional £3½ million to be raised from spectacles and false teeth charges.
We were told originally that this money would be used for mental hospitals. We were then told that it would be devoted to comprehensive schools. The nurses in my constituency feel that this money should be devoted to improving their pay and allowances. Indeed, we should be told that the Government have plans to conduct a complete review of the pay scales applicable to the nursing profession. I refer not only to student nurses,


but to the scales paid to those in posts both at the top and bottom of the profession.

Mr. Speaker: Order. All hon. Members share the hon. Gentleman's sympathy with the nursing profession, but he cannot debate the issue now.

Mr. Drayson: I will not debate the merits of the case on this occasion, but confine my remarks simply to saying that before we adjourn for Whitsun we should be given an assurance that a statement will be made to allay the anxieties of the nursing profession, and that something will be done to alleviate the difficulties that now exist.

6.34 p.m.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. George Thomson): A number of the matters raised in the latter part of the debate—the I.M.F., pensions, by-election writs, and so on—were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will wish to study the further arguments that have been adduced. I assure the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) that my right hon. Friend the Chief Patronage Secretary will carefully bear in mind the comments he made. To save the time of the House, therefore, I will concentrate on the new points that have been raised.
A number of hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) and the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), referred to Rhodesia and spoke of certain views which they understood were being expressed in that country. I will abide by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and not go into the merits of the matter. Suffice to say, therefore, that the exchanges between the Rhodesian régime and Her Majesty's Government are confidential.
There is, however, no reason for us to rely on the sort of rumours that arise, since Mr. Smith has, sadly, put his present position publicly in recent days. For example, he told a meeting on 7th May that the latest proposals which he was putting before the Rhodesian electorate would sound the death-knell to the principle of majority rule.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman cannot debate Rhodesia on this Motion. He might care to argue

that we should return next week for that purpose.

Mr. Thomson: The Recess might be useful to hon. Members on both sides of the House in that, without the presence of the Government Front Bench, they might care to use whatever influence they have in Rhodesia to try to secure a reversal of the present tendencies there.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) spoke about Scottish teachers. Without commitment, I assure him that I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Leader of the House to the request he made for his Question on Wednesday to be dealt with in the House, even if not reached in the normal way.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot commit himself here and now to assuring me that I will receive art Answer to my Question at the end of Question Time. Does he appreciate, however, that the Leader of the House gave me an undertaking that I would be given an Answer and that I have not yet received one?

Mr. Thomson: I assure the hon. Gentleman, who is a geographical if not a political neighbour of mine, that I appreciate the feeling in Scotland on this issue.
A number of hon. Members, not only hon. Gentlemen opposite but my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), referred to the Private Bill procedure. I assure them that I will draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the views they expressed.
The hon. Member for St. Albans and the hon. Member for Chigwell referred to the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke. I need not tell them that the whole House shares their concern over this case. I cannot add to what was said recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Indeed, it would not be helpful if I were to add anything in the present circumstances, and I hope that the House will be willing to accept that reply.
I had some sympathy with the efforts of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) to stay within the rules of order. I assure him that I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social


Services to the view he expressed and to his request for information on the constitutional issue which he sought to put before the House.
A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite raised somewhat polemical questions over their anxiety at leaving the Government for 16 days without having to face a parliamentary Opposition in the House. Perhaps a 16-day Recess will be useful for the Opposition as well as for the Government. It may give hon. Gentlemen opposite an opportunity to make up their minds on the policies which they wish to press on the Government after the Recess. For example, they may care to decide whether the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition last November, in Swansea, in which he asked us to introduce a labour relations Bill, has their support, and if the speech made last weekend in Glasgow—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is tempting himself to be out of order.

Mr. Thomson: The length of Recess which we are proposing is normal. I have looked up the records and found that in a number of somewhat difficult years when the Conservatives were in power this length of Recess was proposed. I have no doubt that during our years in opposition we made the same sort of points as hon. Gentlemen opposite have made today. I believe that the Recess being proposed is of the right length and I hope that hon. Members enjoy their holiday and return benefited by it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday 9th June.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (LONDON) (recommitted) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have posted, as is my wont, the Amendments which I have selected for this Report stage.

Clause 4

LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE

6.40 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'eight' and insert 'ten'.
This Amendment meets a request made by the Opposition in Committee. It seemed to us, on reflection, that there was no great argument against it. It gives a little more flexibility, and it seemed to us reasonable to make the change asked for.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am grateful to the Minister for making a change which I sought in Committee. It does not bind the Transport Executive to any particular size, but as it provides some extra flexibility it might be useful.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
This is an Amendment of some substance. Its purpose is to leave out the provisions in the Clause relating to disqualification of members, officers or servants of the London Transport Executive from membership of the Greater London Council. We have thought about this matter a great deal, and the reason for the Amendment, quite simply, is that we have reached the conclusion that formal disqualification of the kind proposed in the Bill as drafted would be inappropriate.
About 60,000 people may well be employed by the London Transport Executive. They will not be employees of the Greater London Council, as such, but employees of the Executive. It seemed


to me—and it is a view about which the Greater London Council has some doubts and apprehensions, but I hope that events will show those apprehensions to be unjustified—that it was unreasonable to exclude this very large number of people from membership of the Greater London Council.

6.45 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: I agree that this is an Amendment of some substance, and we should like the Minister to tell us more about it before coming to a decision on it. We are transferring control of a very large undertaking from the House to a very substantial body of regional government. It is not just a small local council but another body of regional government. The person's position is parallel to that of a person working with a nationalised industry and the possibility of his entering this House. If a person works for and draws a salary from British Rail, or London Transport, or the National Coal Board or any other nationalised undertaking, he cannot at the same time become a Member of Parliament. There are very good reasons for that rule.
If that is the position, he could not at the moment be an employee of London Transport and be a Member of Parliament, but it seems that by transferring the ownership of the undertaking across the road to the Greater London Council we are making a very fundamental change; that is to say, a person can be an employee of the Transport Executive and, at one and the same time, a member of the Council which has jurisdiction over that Executive.
In Committee, I asked the Minister what happens if a union negotiator negotiating an increase in salary for the people whom he represents with the London Transport Executive is also a councillor on the G.L.C. which ultimately will have to say whether that increase should go through. There is, basically, a conflict of interest there which is not covered by the union official having a pecuniary interest—he may have none What would be the position in such a case?
I wonder why, if we preclude people from coming to this place while holding an office of profit either under the Crown or under one of the big nationalised

industries, we should not observe the same rule when the undertaking is transferred to another body of regional government.

Mr. Marsh: The analogy, if I may say so, is fairly dubious. Members of nationalised boards could not serve in this House, but they could be members of another place—some of them are. I am not absolutely certain about the detailed provisions for the staffs of nationalised industries, but I do not believe that there is any statutory debarment of the staff of the nationalised industries standing for Parliament. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is a shining example of the advantages gained for the nation by persons leaving nationalised industries and coming to this place.

Mrs. Thatcher: They could stand for Parliament and they could stand for the G.L.C. What the Minister proposes in this Amendment is that at the same time as a person is a councillor, he could also be an employee of the Executive. Even the excellent Parliamentary Secretary is not at one and the same time a Member of Parliament and drawing an emolument from a nationalised industry.

Mr. Marsh: There is a difference from the situation where my hon. Friend, of whose financial circumstances I have no knowledge but who probably earned £6,000, £7,000, or £8,000 before coming here from a nationalised industry, now finds himself working full time in the House. We are talking of the Greater London Council and of people who are not to be paid at all. This is voluntary work. There is nothing new at all in the case raised by the hon. Lady of the trade union negotiator negotiating with the Greater London Council.
I recall that the chairman of the Greater London Council was an officer of my trade union, the National Union of Public Employees, which is probably the biggest and quickest growing union in the country. He was chairman and was, at the same time, responsible for negotiations relating to many of the staff of the council.
There is no conflict here at all. What we are talking about is a group of people who are not employed by the Greater London Council. Their salaries are not negotiated by the council. The council


is responsible for policy in agreement with the executive on this matter. It seems to me to be wrong to debar about 60,000 people from serving in a voluntary capacity on a local authority just because it is possible that there might be some sort of conflict of interest for lay trade union officials—because there is nothing to prevent a full time trade union official being a member of the Greater London Council.
The only problem is that the man might be a bus conductor and a branch official of the Transport and General Workers' Union. It is possible that this may happen, but if the electors want him as a member of the Greater London Council, I see no reason for preventing him standing for the council if he so wishes.
We are making rather heavy weather of this Amendment. There will not be vast numbers of employees of the executive wanting to serve on the Greater London Council. I can imagine that the problem could arise if members of the executive itself were allowed to serve on the council. That is not allowed. I can imagine that, in certain cases, it would be highly undesirable for a senior official of the executive to be a member of the council, but I should have thought that this was something which the executive itself could deal with by its own staff methods. Indeed, the senior executive wanting to place himself in such a highly compromising position would cast doubts on his suitability for his job.
We are concerned with an unique situation related to a group of people who, if the Bill went through in its present form, would be debarred from serving as voluntary members of their own local authority.

Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman is laying great stress on the word "voluntary". Would he take a different view if G.L.C. councillors were paid, as in due course they might have to be?

Mr. Marsh: I certainly would not take a different view. I cannot see why 60,000 people should be debarred from standing for election to the Greater London Council. I do not believe that if the electors of Greenwich or any other place in Greater London decided that they wanted to elect a bus conductor or a clerk employed

by the executive to the council that that would cause any problem. The only argument is that there might be a clash in negotiations, but that falls down because over the years there have been many eminent trade union officials at national, local and regional level who have held office on the council.
It may be invidious to mention names, but Mr. Sidney Barton was for many years an eminent member of the London County Council and served on many of its committees and was eventually chairman. He was an official of a union which had a large membership employed by the council. One could not apply this to the man who was negotiating at regional level, but it is suggested that there would be great difficulty if he were a part-time official. We are talking only about part-time officials. Many trade union branch officials do very good work on local authorities.
Before excluding tens of thousands from the right—which they might never exercise—even to seek election to their own local authority, the House should think very carefully. It should be moved only by strong argument and I do not think that there are strong arguments against this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 29, at end insert:
(6) Section 15 of the Local Government Superannuation Act 1953 (which enables local authorities to admit to their superannuation schemes employees of statutory undertakers) and section 6(1)(k) of this Act shall have effect as if members of the Executive were employees of the Executive; but where a member of the Executive is admitted to participate in the benefits of a superannuation fund maintained by a local authority or of a pension fund or scheme in which employees a the Executive or any subsidiary of theirs participate—

(a) subsection (5)(b) of this section shall not apply to him; and
(b) the Executive shall make any payments which are required to be made in respect of him to the superannuation fund by the employing authority or, as the case may be, to the pension fund or under the pension scheme by the employer, and may make from his remuneration any deductions which the employing authority or, as the case may be, the employer might make in respect of his contributions to that fund or under that scheme if he were an employee of the Executive.



This is a fearsome-looking Amendment, but it is a fairly simple one. We have been asked for this by the Greater London Council. It makes provision that members of the executive can be members of the G.L.C. pensions scheme and makes the same provision for the board. It applies Section 15 of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1953, to members of the executive as if they were employees. This would enable such members to participate in the Greater London Council's Superannuation Fund. So far as I know, this a non-controversial item. It would make the ability of these people to take part in the pensions scheme that much more simple.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I was under the impression that a full-time member of the executive would normally be a member of the London Transport pensions scheme, although no doubt a part-time member would not be a member of the pension fund. Is it now suggested that a full-time executive member of London Transport could be a member of the Greater London scheme as well as the London Transport executive scheme? Is this something additional, or does it only assure the rights of a full-time executive to be a member of the pension Fund?

Mr. Marsh: It is certainly not intended that they should get two pensions. This matter is rather complicated. At present, even if Greater London Council wished, it could not enable these people—members, not employees of the executive—to participate in the council's own superannuation fund. All this Amendment does is to apply Section 15 of the 1953 Act to those members so that they can join the G.L.C. pension fund if the G.L.C. and they so desire.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

GENERAL DUTIES OF EXECUTIVE AND OTHER BODIES WITH RESPECT TO PASSENGER TRANSPORT SERVICES FOR GREATER LONDON

Mr. Berry: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 5, line 11, at end insert 'and costings'.
This is an important Amendment. I do not so describe it because my name is attached to it, but because those words were used by the Minister in Committee. Its purpose is to place an obligation on the executive of British Rail or the National Bus Company to co-operate with a view to co-ordinating their services. Again, I am paraphrasing what the Minister said earlier. It is necessary for these bodies to have access to each other's accounts and costings.
Those last two words are important. The Minister said that the costings are necessary for examination of the services and there is a legal obligation to provide the costings. I cannot see why he is so reluctant, so far as I know, to accept these words. I presume that he is reluctant because he has not put down an Amendment to insert these words.
Are the bodies concerned to accept the interpretation which the right hon Gentleman led us to believe in Committee they would accept? It is understandable that each of the three sides in the majority of circumstances would wish to keep their private matters confidential. If, for example, they were expected to subsidise another part of the transport industry, that would be even more natural, They would have doubts about probing into their affairs and about whether figures should be revealed to others.
We had a long discussion on this in Committee. Towards the end of it I began to wonder why we needed the words "as to their services". The more that the Minister argued the more it came to my mind that the purpose would be met by the words.
and to afford to one another such information as to their services as may be reasonably required for those purposes".
If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put in "as to their services" he should put in the additional words "and costings".
One phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used in Committee caused me concern. I should like him to comment on it. He said:
The information is to be made available as far as is reasonably required. The three bodies concerned will be able to decide what information is needed in any particular case.
That destroyed the whole point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If they


can decide for themselves what information they will provide, and they decide not to provide certain information, they will not do so. It is vital to have these words in the Bill.
Later in the debate, the right hon. Gentleman said:
We are both seeking to provide that, wherever costings are necessary as part of the information to be supplied, they shall be supplied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st April, 1969; C. 81–5.]
By his earlier phrase the Minister suggested that he doubts whether that will happen. The words "and costings" are vital to achieve the effect which hon. Members on both sides of the House want to achieve.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I wish to add one question to that raised by the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). I think that the word "costings" is probably unnecessary and that "information" would include them. I accept the Minister's argument about that, having read the proceedings in Committee, and I think that hon. Members who served on the Committee got themselves into an unnecessary muddle.
However, the words quoted by the hon. Gentleman from c. 81 of the Committee proceedings raise a different question. What is to happen if the three bodies concerned with the information are not able to decide what is needed in any given case? Having read through the Clause and having read the debate in Committee, I do not see that any provision is made for that eventuality.
If, say, the Railways Board wishes to discontinue a service and the executive wishes to know to what extent it is unremunerative and whether it should seek a subsidy for operating an alternative, if then the Board refuses to divulge the information, the executive will have no power to compel it to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we are not discussing the Clause or the subsection. We are discussing whether we add the words "and costings" after "services".

Mr. Lubbock: If I may say so, the insertion of the words "and costings" is relevant to the argument. The costings might be the very information which one

of the bodies would refuse to divulge to another.
Although I am satisfied that the word "information" would include any figures relating to costs which might be
reasonably required for those purposes",
I hope that the Minister will clear up this point before we conclude the Report stage, in case we need to take further action in another place.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has said on this point. A comparison of costings between the various forms of transport in certain parts of the Greater London area might be very important. I concede that it is probably not necessary in the inner zone, where we want all the transport that we can get, whether it is underground or overground. In the fringe areas, however, there is frequently a choice between bus, Underground and railway, and costings enter into any such consideration more importantly.
In my constituency, we have the Richmond to Broad Street line. I should have thought that comparisons of costings between British Railways and London Transport might be important in deciding how it could be operated in other ways. Therefore, in the fringe areas, a comparison of costings between bus, Underground and rail might be very important in integrating London's transport.

Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) said, with his customary clinical clarity, we have tended to get a little hooked up on this point. I agree with the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) about the importance of costings in certain cases.
The Bill says:
… and to afford to one another such information as to their services as may be reasonably required for those purposes …
The information required about these services may include costings. Where the costings are relevant to the information required, the three bodies have a statutory obligation to provide them.
What we do not want to do is add the word "costings" which, first, duplicates the point in that the information which is relevant can include costings wherever


they are relevant to the information and, second, places upon the bodies an obligation to produce costings where they are not relevant.
At the moment, they should provide any information which is necessary or useful about the services. If that includes costings, they are included. If it does not, we do not want to know and nor does anyone else. As drafted, the Clause makes provision for the presentation of information about costings where that information is relevant to this exercise.
The second argument is that, once we begin to define a part of the information required as to their services, we cast doubt on those other bits of information which are not so defined. The words
… such information as to their services as may be reasonably required",
mean any information. If we say "such information and costings", there is some obligation to define what are the other bits of information.
The hon. Member for Orpington asked what happens if the three bodies cannot reach agreement? Here, one has to take into account what the three bodies are. We are dealing with the London Transport Executive, the National Bus Company and the British Railways Board. They are quite used to dealing with this problem. If costings are required, they will make them available. They will not refuse to give information which they are required by the Statute to provide.
If one had a series of occasions when costings were required as part of the information and one of the nationalised industries refused them, this would raise a far bigger issue than how to make the information available. It would bring into question the composition of the board concerned. I do not think that the problem will arise.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am sure the Minister agrees that we do not wish to make too much of this point. We have discussed it already at great length. However, the fact remains that if the words "and costings" are implied in the legislation it is difficult to understand why the Minister will not accept the words built into the legislation and remove any doubt about the need to provide detailed figures.
Our concern is that it might be possible for one of the organisations to produce a framework of costings and then refuse to produce details showing how that framework was built up. That has always been our concern.
Where one of the bodies wishes to see not just castings but details of the costings, it is reasonable for it to wish to probe into those figures, and it seems to us, purely for the sake of clarification, that the words should be added to the Clause.
I know that the Minister appreciates the real difficulties of trying to cost transport services where we shall be dealing with cross-subsidisation, the spread of overheads, et cetera, and I would have hoped that he would make it compulsory for the organisations concerned to discuss and examine the costings that they provide in the most detailed way. If provision for that is not included in the legislation, we fear that it will be possible for the organisation concerned to produce figures but refuse to discuss them or break them down.
This possibility would be avoided if the words suggested were added to the Clause.

Mr. Marsh: Perhaps I might be allowed to reply to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) on this point, because I know that it is one which causes right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite some concern, even though they do not want to make too much of it.
Let me stress again that the Statute will be quite clear. It is not within the competence of any one of these bodies to refuse to supply such information as to their services as may be reasonably required. If that information is detailed costings, that information has to be supplied. There is no doubt about that.
The other leg of the hon. Gentleman's argument is to say, if that is so, why not put in the words "and costings" to avoid doubt? First, we think that there is no doubt. We believe that doubt will arise if, instead of saying that any information which is necessary has to be provided, we said "any information and costings". If we define one item, we cast doubt upon the rest. One would then have to have a reason why some


pieces of information were not specifically dealt with in the Statute and others were.
Because of the concern expressed, I have had the point checked, and I assure hon. Members that, in our view, the Clause is clear in its effect and that
such information as to their services as may be reasonably required for those purposes
means just what it says, and includes costings wherever appropriate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

GENERAL POWERS OF EXECUTIVE

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 36, leave out paragraph (m).
At the end of the series of paragraphs giving the powers to the London Transport Executive, there comes paragraph (m) which catches up, so to speak, all activities which are at present being conducted by the London Transport Board and which it would be desirable to transfer to the executive. The discussion in Committee in this connection was directed entirely to finding out where it had been necessary for this undefined and general power to be used in matters not covered by the other paragraphs of the Clause.
On 22nd April, we asked for details, and the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I do not have them immediately available, but I am prepared to ask the L.T.B. to look into this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd April, 1969; c. 231.]
Up to now, no answer has come.
The House ought to be aware of the powers embraced by this paragraph. Even at this late hour, it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could give comprehensive examples showing why they are necessary. The other paragraphs are widely drawn. Although I realise that there are precedents for provisions of this sort, we ought to be told a little more.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that my right hon. Friend wrote to his hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) about this matter on 15th May. He

explained that we had checked the question with the L.T.B. and had been told that it was aware of one such contract, and that is with B.E.A. for the provision of emergency airport services which are run from time to time as the need arises. The need would arise, for instance, if in-coming air passengers were diverted from Heathrow to Gatwick, and needed to be conveyed to hotels outside the London area by L.T.B. coach.
After discussion with the L.T.B., my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this is the only contract of any significance which is likely to require to be dealt with under this power.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have received two long letters from the Minister dated 16th May, but I do not appear to have received one dated 15th May. It may well be that there was another one; he has been writing to me frequently recently. I shall have a look. Perhaps we can pursue the matter on another occasion.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 15, at end insert:
(6) If at the vesting date any action has been taken by the London Board for the purpose of promoting a Bill in Parliament in pursuance of the powers conferred by, and with the consent of the Minister under, section 17 of the Act of 1962, the Executive may proceed with the promotion of that Bill as if that action had been taken by them in pursuance of the powers conferred by, and with the consent of the Council under, the said section 17 as applied by subsection (2) of this section.
This Amendment will enable the London Transport Executive to continue promoting any Private Bill which has been initiated by the London Transport Board but which has not passed through all its parliamentary stages by vesting date under the London (Transport) Bill. Where the Minister of Transport has consented to the promotion of such a Bill by the London Transport Board, the consent of the G.L.C. will not be required for the London Transport Executive to continue it.
No issue of principle is raised. It is a formality only. Clearly, it would be absurd if the executive had to start a Private Bill all over again after vesting date.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

FINANCIAL DUTY OF EXECUTIVE

7.15 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 9, line 32, at end insert:
'(provided that such period shall not exceed five years in each case)'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time, Amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 45, at end insert:
(c) and where such period as is referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall exceed one year, the Executive shall publish at the beginning of the period a detailed forecast of the principal revenues and expenditures anticipated for that period.

Captain Elliot: This is a most important Clause because it deals with the financial duty of the London Transport Executive, and, in view of the mammoth size of the concern which we are establishing, it is necessary that the matter be closely controlled. We had long and detained discussion on the subject in Committee, but at the end we were still not clear what the position was.
As I see it, the executive is given an accounting period—presumably, by mutual agreement between the G.L.C. and the executive—and at the end of that period it should more or less break even. In addition, there will be an annual statement of accounts. In the first place, we consider that a limit on that accounting period should be written into the Bill. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 8. Our fear is that, although the executive, under subsection (3)(b), has to get out of deficit, it may be able to extend the accounting period so that it never reaches its target.
That is the effect of the argument as it was put in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). In reply, the Minister said:
The Executive has to get out of the red in the year following that in which it gets into it"—
and he added, a few moments later—
but it might help if I put on record a definition of paragraph (b). … It provides that if the aggregate of the net balance of the consolidated revenue account of the Executive and of any subsidiaries, plus the net balance of the general reserve of the Executive, is in deficit at the end of an accounting period—which would normally be one year—the Executive

must do all it can to make that aggregate positive again by the end of the next accounting period—that is, within one year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 22nd April, 1969; c. 239–41.]
The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that the accounting period will be one year, but he is not certain. I shall not repeat all our arguments, but he himself said that it might be two or three years, or, perhaps, as in the case of nationalised industries, five years.
Amendment No. 8, if accepted, would clarify the situation and everybody would know where he stood. In Committee we suggested a shorter period, but we thought that it might be too short. We therefore propose five years, which seems reasonable.
When we were creating this great monopoly, we discussed at length the responsibility of the G.L.C. to the electors. The Minister often stressed that a vital safeguard for the efficient running of this concern would be the sanction of the electors. But the executive has a most complicated task and it will be extremely difficult for the ratepayer, who will have to pay the piper in the end, to decide whether its operations are being conducted efficiently. To do that, he will need all the information that he can get. If Amendment No. 8 is accepted he will have something to go on. It will help him to decide at the appropriate time how he will apply the sanction of his vote.

Mr. Marsh: As the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) said, we had a long discussion on this point in Committee.
Dealing with Amendment No. 8, there is no figure which is the right figure. It can be argued that it should be four, five or six years. We say that it is for the executive and the G.L.C. to reach agreement on the matter in the way which best suits them. The legislation places stringent financial controls and obligations on them, and we do not feel that the Government or the House should lay down this rigorous requirement. There is no reason why the figure should not be four, five or six years. One can pick any figure out of the air.
We say that the best people to do this, given that they have to meet their financial obligations, are the G.L.C., which


will carry the can, and the L.T.E., who will be operating the organisation. This is a degree of inflexibility which we do not need. The matter can well be left to the discretion of the G.L.C. and the executive to decide on whatever periods may be appropriate for the settlement of a target in the light of the circumstances at the time. They should not be bound by a constraint which must, by its nature, be purely arbitrary.
A very onerous obligation is proposed in Amendment No. 9. I am not sure that the G.L.C. or the L.T.E. would be very enthusiastic about it. It provides that
where such period as is referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection shall exceed one year, the Executive shall publish at the beginning of the period a detailed forecast of the principal revenues and expenditures anticipated for that period.
To place upon them or any commercial undertaking, the task of publishing this amount of detail, say, five years in advance and to expect them to publish what they think are likely to be wage movements five years in advance, would place the executive and the council in an intolerable position.
No organisation is asked to publish this sort of detail, or to say that it believes that wages will rise by £X in one year and £Y in two years. I can imagine that some of my hon. Friends would think this a not unattractive proposition. I know what I would have done in a different situation wearing a different hat. But it would not be fair to hang this requirement round the necks of the G.L.C. and the executive.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Minister seemed to argue that the requirement proposed in Amendment No. 8 would be particularly rigorous and that it is not the desire of the House or the Government to impose a rigorous requirement of this sort on the London Transport Executive. But the whole concept of the Clause involves an extremely rigorous financial objective. To say that the executive shall so carry out its functions that, allowing for the possibility of using up its general reserve over a period, it will break even is, in terms of providing public transport, laying down a very rigorous objective. It is not reasonable, therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that there should not be a

refinement of the definition of the sort envisaged in Amendment No. 8.
The reason why the period of five years has been chosen is that, as the Minister rightly said, it is impossible to define these matters with precision. It is arguable that the period should be three, six or perhaps seven years. There will always be a case against choosing a particular period within which the financial objectives must be hit. Therefore, the Minister says, "We shall not define the period". But the moment we move to that stage we make a nonsense of the provisions in the Bill. Unless there is a fixed period within which certain targets must be achieved, it is open to the G.L.C. at any time to lengthen the period and to say that it will achieve its targets at some time in future.
In this case, there is no time when one will know whether the financial disciplines in Clause 7 are being met. One has to take an arbitrary decision about the time involved. Five years is a perfectly reasonable period. In Committee, the Minister referred to the period of five years in the context of the target which we were discussing. For that reason, we went on the Minister's word and took five years, which was not unreasonable.
When dealing with a financial target spread over a period as long as five years, unless one has a phased budget, it is possible during the first, second, third and fourth years to say that the bonanza will come in the fifth year and that if only people will have patience the profits will come rolling in. The only way in which one can ascertain whether targets are being reached and whether the programme is on course is to have a phased budget in advance.
I am the first to accept that to try to set a detailed fixed budget over five years is extremely difficult. But that is the concept of the legislation. Therefore, that is the definition within which we must operate. It is totally unacceptable for the Minister to say, on the one hand, that it is necessary to have a long period within which certain financial objectives should be reached and, on the other hand, to say that because he has set a financial objective over a long period it is unreasonable to ask for detailed forecasts over that period. The two things seem to be contradictory.
It may well be that in Amendment No. 9 there is a precision which makes a nonsense of the safeguards which we were trying to achieve in drafting it. The sort of examples which the Minister gave are not capable of being incorporated in detail in a five-year programme. It is impossible to say that costs will rise over five years by X amount per annum, although the right hon. Member for Be1per (Mr. George Brown) was not deterred in producing the National Plan which covered five years, giving the most detailed calculations industry by industry to show precisely what would happen throughout the economy.
At that time, the right hon. Member for Belper was only too happy to argue volubly that this was a reasonable way of running the economy. Now, when we try to do the same in a relatively restricted form, we are told that it is impossible because one cannot take account of the increases in costs which will occur. It is reassuring that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport has seen the error of his Government's ways, but this objection is easily overcome with by dealing with real costs adjusted for 1969 purposes, thereby disregarding any inflationary elements in the five-year period.
This would be a reasonable course. I am sure that it is not beyond the ingenuity of the Ministry to find a new form of words which would remove "detailed" from Amendment No. 9. But I come back to the certainty, that unless we place a fixed end to the financial period over which the targets have to be met and which is not capable of being adjusted when it suits the politicians to do so, and unless we have a budget to cover the period, the financial disciplines of Clause 7 will, in practice, not be easy for the general public or legislators to follow.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Lubbock: I wonder whether we should be talking of financial disciplines as though this were a Bill for a nationalised industry. We are discussing a new executive which is to come under the Greater London Council. If we start off by laying down in detail how it is to behave and what financial responsibilities it is to assume, the electors of

Greater London, to whom this body is to be indirectly responsible, may well ask what is the point of making the transfer if, ultimately, Parliament still lays down the rules.
I would prefer an even more flexible financial arrangement than is contained in the Clause. I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) when he tries to place this restriction on the G.L.C.'s freedom of action. As a Greater London elector, I am satisfied that I will be able to exercise my privilege of voting against the G.L.C. if it acts contrary to my interests.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am not trying, and we have never tried, to put tighter discipline into this Bill than is already there. We are trying to make the disciplines built in by the Government and the G.L.C. interpretable to members of the general public.

Mr. Lubbock: What the Opposition are trying to do with Amendment No. 8, and even more so with Amendment No. 9, is to circumscribe the freedom of the G.L.C. in deciding how it is to behave towards the executive and what the accounting period should be. We shall have to agree to disagree on this. It is a matter on which perhaps our judgments are somewhat subjective. The House must make up its mind, since this is the last opportunity we shall have of considering the matter.
As far as possible in the Bill I want to leave the council complete freedom of action in the financial control of the executive. If we begin by laying down what the accounting period should be, we shall be giving them all sorts of rules in advance which it may be inconvenient for them to carry out. Let us leave it to the G.L.C. to decide. If we disagree with the way it conducts its affairs, the remedy is in our hands as London electors.

Captain Elliot: I was disturbed by the reply of the Minister. He said that what we asked would be an onerous task for the executive. I think that it would be but I would have no compunction in giving it to the executive. This great organisation will have tentacles reaching all over the country and will be in a position to establish monopoly conditions over the Greater London area. It is bceause of


this that we must surely write into the Bill what the right hon. Gentleman called an onerous task so that the ratepayers can judge how things are going. Does the right hon. Gentleman really expect the ordinary ratepayers to assess whether the executive and the G.L.C. are properly carrying out their duties unless they have some reasonable information to go on?

Mr. Archie Manuel: I support my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport. It is nonsense to have a strict period for return on revenue or capital accounts. Does the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) really mean that the period should be five years? Does not he mean, in practice, six years? If he does mean five years, then there cannot be an accurate financial return because there is a lapse of one year before one can begin to get accuracy in the way he wants.
What the Bill proposes is quite common practice among many local authority undertakings because of the breadth of operation, the varying degrees of expenditure and the uncommon difficulties which can arise during the course of any accounting period and which cannot be forecast. The Amendments could not be carried out in practice. I agree with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

Mr. Marsh: I think that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding here. In this part of the Bill we are dealing with two limbs of the same obligation. Clause 7(3)(a) deals with the period for forward targets, which can be any period agreed between the G.L.C. and the L.T.B. This is the right course because any business undertaking must be protected from being forced to take measures which might be undesirable at the time purely to avoid going into deficit for a limited period. It is reasonable, therefore, that the G.L.C. and the L.T.B. should be able to fix the period target according to the circumstances at the time.
The other limb of the argument is Clause 7(3)(b), which lays down the annual period and that any deficit has to be put right in the following year. Since the G.L.C. will have to pay the bill at the end of the day if the undertaking's finances are not right, there will be a limited amount of time in which it can go on running into deficit each year. The

targeting must be able to take into account, as in any other industry, the circumstances of the time.
To ask a commercial undertaking to publish the detailed assumptions on which it bases a five-year forward plan is to ask it to do something which hon. Members opposite would get excited about if anyone, in their wilder moments, suggested it of private enterprise. There cannot be a valuable forward plan of a large organisation which does not take account of movements—and there are bound to be some—over a period.

Captain W. Elliot: The Minister talks about not asking a private undertaking to do this, but he will appreciate that if a private undertaking calculates wrongly its shareholders will suffer the loss. If the G.L.C. or the Transport Executive calculates wrongly, the ratepayers will suffer, and this will remove a great incentive to the executive to run its business efficiently.

Mr. Marsh: The analogy is a good one. We are here producing a situation where the shareholders can sack the board, the shareholders being the G.L.C., and this is rather more difficult in many private companies. The people who are operating the policy are elected by the shareholders at three-yearly meetings, and it would be a significant electoral issue if large sums of money were coming out of the rates.
I come back to the point that under subsection (3)(b) they have an obligation to put the deficit right in the following year. Hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady opposite, all of who are extraordinarily reasonable people, will, I am sure, on reflection, recognise that their fears are unjustified.

Mrs. Thatcher: I refer specifically to Amendment No. 8, about which the Minister is making a great fuss. Without this Amendment the only obligation on the G.L.C. and the executive is not to run the reserve plus the revenue account into a deficit for two years in succession. In meeting that obligation they could run down the total reserve to nothing, go into deficit for a year and then come back the following year, so that all the reserve which is being built up as a result of the latest increase in fares which the Minister has just approved could go right


down to nothing in one year, be in deficit for a year, and in the third year would just have to come back to nought. That is the only obligation upon the executive and the G.L.C., and it is an obligation which patently allows them to use up every penny of the reserve which is built up.
All we are saying in the Amendment is that the G.L.C. and the executive must agree a target for their reserves plus their revenue account and, at the end of a period of up to five years, they should then have an accounting, to see how they are getting on. It gives them a great deal of flexibility. They can take as the target period for reserves plus profit from revenue account two, three, four or five years, but they cannot go on moving the period indefinitely without measuring their performance at the end of five years.
This is all we are asking for, and it is eminently reasonable that at the end of five years the council and the executive must be compelled to measure their performance against their target. I am amazed that the Minister should run so hard and so fast away from this. He owes it to those travellers who are building up the reserves which, without this Amendment, may be frittered away.

Mr. Marsh: No.

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, because if the Amendment is not made the only obligation comes in the other limb. The Minister owes it to the travellers and the ratepayers to see that any body to whom he is transferring such powers measures its performance to its target at least once every five years.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Lady is suggesting that there would be complete secrecy and the periods could be extended so that the balance or the deficit would never be known, but she will be aware of the government auditors who do their work scrupulously and make returns, and therefore the position which the hon. Lady envisages could not arise.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Lady is so obviously reasonable. I agree that the accounting period in subsection (3,a) should not exceed five years but is not it certain that the Greater London Council

and the excutive will agree on a period which is not more than five years, so why not leave the decision to them?

7.45 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: To take the first intervention first, of course we shall know the results in the annual accounts, but we shall not know how far those results fall short of the target and we shall have no means of knowing.
In reply to what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said, in passing over far-reaching powers to another body, it is up to this House to decide upon the limits of those powers. It is right for us to say to a body to whom we pass over extensive powers that it must look to see how it has exercised those powers at least once every five years. It has been said that the management could be sacked once every three years, but how can that be done if within five years it is not known how the performance has measured up to the target? The facts will not be available upon which to make a judgment. Only the annual accounts will be available.
The Amendment is eminently reasonable. Had we stuck to the direct terms of Amendment No. 8, which provide; that the G.L.C. and the executive should measure their performance at least once every five years, I would have thought that almost every hon. Member would have agreed to it. The Minister has given a poor reply, and has tried to swing on to the Amendment which was not moved but which was discussed. Will he consider the essence of Amendment No. 8 in another place?

Mr. Marsh: Since the question has been asked directly, the short answer is, "No." Any organisation must be given the opportunity from time to time to look at its finances and decide what it wants to do in the light of those circumstances. A commercial undertaking may from time to time, for example, decide to operate on a deficit rather than to take short-term decisions which may be highly undesirable.
For all those reasons, I have more faith in the Greater London Council than has the hon. Lady and, since that Council will be operating this body, this is one phase where Whitehall can stay outside.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS AS TO CONTROL OF EXECUTIVE BY COUNCIL

Captain W. Elliot: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 14, line 23, leave out
'a substantial outlay on capital account' and insert:
'an outlay on capital account in excess of such a sum as may from time to time be determined by the Council'.
The Amendment has the effect of giving to the Greater London Council a closer and more specific control of capital expenditure by the London Transport Executive. The word "substantial" is a relative word; "substantial" in a small business is a very different thing from "substantial" in the executive. The Amendment would oblige the executive to set a specific sum, and this would be a discipline to the executive and to the council.
The executive will be an enormous concern which will control and operate a vast transport complex, with a variety of services, many of which, hon. Members who have not been on the Committee will probably be surprised to hear, will be outside the London area.
In those circumstances it would be difficult for the G.L.C. itself, which is concerned with many other great tasks in running the Greater London area, to keep in close touch with the operations of the Transport Executive. The Amendment will ensure consultation and give specific control to the G.L.C. over the outlay on capital account by the Transport Executive.
The Government undertook in Committee to look again at the point. We shall be glad to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.

Mr. Lubbock: The disadvantage of the Amendment is that it could only be agreed what such sum should be in respect of all capital expenditure by the executive, and different limits could not be fixed to apply to various classes of items.
For example, it might be convenient for the G.L.C. and the executive to agree on certain maxima in respect of buildings and other maxima in respect of the

vehicles themselves. The Amendment would restrict their freedom, and I hope that the Minister will reject it.
Captain W. Elliot: I do not know that the hon. Member has it quite right. The executive has to refer the sums to the council if a substantial outlay is involved. We are merely defining it more specifically to give greater control to the G.L.C.

Mr. Lubbock: I am not a lawyer, so perhaps somebody else could assist the House on the legal point. But, if I read the Amendment correctly, there could be only one limit placed on the sum since the Amendment says:
an outlay on capital account in excess of such a sum as may from time to time be determined by the council".
It does not say that such sums shall be in respect of different classes of capital expenditure.
If the Amendment had used such words, there might have been some force in it. The words which are already in the Bill,
a substantial outlay on capital account",
allow these different classes of expenditure to be treated differently by the G.L.C. and the executive. They give greater flexibility to the arrangement between the two bodies.

Mr. Bob Brown: It is true that in Committee I promised to have another look at this matter but, having done so, we decided not to amend the Bill. There is nothing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said tonight which would cause me to change my mind.
If the G.L.C. had had any anxieties, knowing of the discussions which took place in Committee upstairs, I imagine that they would have let us know. The Bill was drafted in consultation with the G.L.C. and the council expressed no concern in this respect. Since the discussions took place in Committee the council has not approached the Minister about the possibility of amending the Bill.
It is the Government's view that none of the fears which have been expressed will, in fact, be realised. These are two responsible public bodies and they should be given reasonable discretion. We see no reason to provide for a different relationship in this matter between the council and the executive from that which is already provided for in Section 15(1)(c)


of the Transport Act, 1968 in respect of P.T.A.s and P.T.E.s

Mr. Michael Heseltine: There appear to be two points on this Amendment. The first was referred to by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) He said that the Amendment would mean a fixed relationship of capital expenditure in relation to all classes of capital.
This point was not discussed in Committee, but everybody's interest would be met if the Government were to agree to consider this matter in another place and to produce a suitable adjustment to cover that contingency. I can only advocate the flexibility which a redraft would achieve. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) put the nub of the matter, namely, the relationship between the G.L.C. and the London Transport Executive. That relationship is crucial and lies behind the Amendment.
The Minister's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on 16th May, in reference to this particular point, uses the following words:
In general, it seems to me right to leave the Council and the Executive as responsible public bodies to settle these matters between themselves.
That is the view of the Minister. It certainly is the view which I advocated in Committee, and which I still hold. It is not the responsibility of these two organisations to decide between themselves the level of capital expenditure on each particular occasion. It is the responsibility of the G.L.C. to lay down capital requirements and the criteria which it wishes the L.T.E. to follow. It is entirely the G.L.C.s responsibility.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: That is what is being said.

Mr. Heseltine: That is not what is being said. It is said that this is an agreement which should be reached in partnership between the two organisations.
This is not the way in which it should be implemented as a matter of managerial intention. What should happen is what would happen in a commercial organisation. The G.L.C., as the board of directors of the L.T.E., should lay down the criteria within which the L.T.E. operate. This undoubtedly would contain a list of the capital expenditure relating to the

various types of expenditure within which the officers of the executive would operate and to which there their authority would extend. That is the demarcation which should be injected into the legislation.
But that is not what is in the legislation. The word "substantial" in the Bill is imprecise. It leaves it open to the L.T.E. to argue with the G.L.C. as to what the discipline should be and to use its own discretion as to what it thinks is or is not substantial. This will leave an area of muddle in legislation, which tighter drafting would not have permitted.
This is not a monumental point, but I am convinced that, in practice, when the G.L.C. comes to impose its will on the L.T.E. it will feel that what is being advocated on this side of the Committee will be the way in which the whole operation should be conducted. I should like to see it in the Bill at once.

Amendment negatived.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 14, line 32, at end insert:
(2A) Where the Executive shall submit to the Council, proposals as to the general level and structure of fares to be charged under subsection 2(d) of this section, and such proposals are approved by the Council, but where as a result of a recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes the implementation of those proposals is delayed by the Minister, then the Minister shall have power to make good any loss of revenue to the Executive which may result.
The purpose of the Amendment is to envisage a situation in which the London Transport Executive, backed by the G.L.C., has applied for an increase in fares and where the increase has been referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. It may be that, for a range of reasons, the P.I.B. would decide that the application should not be granted and that the Minister would intervene to prevent its being granted. In this sort of situation a substantial loss could accrue to the L.T.E., against the wishes of the executive or the G.L.C. There are dozens of different reasons which might attract the Prices and Incomes Board so that the additional revenue which could be raised from a fares increase is withheld.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will not hesitate to make the point that the Prices and Incomes Board has


just approved a £8 million increase in fares, but it may not be so well known to the House that at the same time it rejected an application by the London Transport Board to increase its fares on the country buses and Green Line coaches.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: A Tory Government did it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine: The point about a Tory Government doing it is an argument on my side and not the hon. Gentleman's. I am concerned that where a national Government intervenes, for whatever reason, to prevent the elected representatives of the people of London increasing their fares to balance their books, it should be the national Government that "carries the can" and not the ratepayers of London. This is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
It is probably arguable in principle in general terms that where the Government intervene they will do so not for local but for national reasons, and if they intervene for national reasons the taxpayer is a more appropriate person to finance any deficit arising in the targets which we discussed earlier, and not the local ratepayer.
There is nothing mandatory in the Amendment making it essential for the Minister to contribute money where he has intervened to prevent a fares increase. It merely gives him the option to make the grants about which we are talking where he feels that he has intervened for this purpose. Therefore, it is in no way compulsory.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my constituents and his should help out the London Transport Executive in its difficulties rather than the London ratepayers?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member was very happy to accept that situation in Committee. All hon. Members opposite voted for the legislation realising what we are putting on to the backs of the British taxpayer.
It is true that there is capital write-off in the legislation which will hand over from the taxpayer a permanent annual subsidy to London Transport. The hon.

Gentleman knows this as well as I do. He understands the figures, and accepted them without demur.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman realises quite well that the capital write-off is a fixed and definite sum.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that that makes it any easier for the taxpayer to bear. The mere fact that there is a 90 per cent. write-off on the capital, the interest on which must be transferred forever to the Treasury, in no way lightens the load of the taxpayer who must bear it. I doubt whether the taxpayers of Nuneaton, who, I am sure, will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's intervention, will find it easier to bear simply because it is a fixed and permanent sum.
It is the taxpayer who is "carrying the can" because it has been decided as an act of national policy to transfer the London Transport operation to the G.L.C. I am not arguing the decision, but I am saying that if, as another act of national policy, there should be another intervention the burden of that intervention should fall not on the G.L.C. but on the taxpayer, who would be represented in this House, where we could discuss the matter.
Therefore, the point is quite clear. The Amendment gives the Minister only an option, where he has intervened in the national interest, to make good the costs of his intervention to the ratepayers who would otherwise have to finance it.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I would like to draw attention to the tragic position of London Transport as it was left as a result of the Government and Transport Tribunal action in 1966. In 1968, London Transport made a loss of £10 million. I believe that unless the Bill had been introduced, and the G.L.C. had insisted on the position being put right, it would still be running at a loss, which would come back to the taxpayer in due course.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also quote the instance in 1953 when, the Transport Tribunal having approved a fares increase for London Transport, the Tory Government of the day turned it down and put it on the back of the taxpayer because of the local elections.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I admit that this has been done before, and that the position is worse now. But this does not justify its being done again in the future.
In paragraph 16 of its recent Report No. 112, Cmnd. 4036, the Prices and Incomes Board stated:
An increase to 6d."—
in the basic fare—
from the then existing level of 4d. was included in the proposals dealt with in our previous report. The Transport Tribunal, however, limited this fare to 5d. because they thought an increase of 50 per cent. at one time might cause too great a loss of passengers and defeat its own ends. They added that if the fare had been increased from 4d. to 5d. in 1966 or early 1967 the time might have been ripe in 1968 for a further increase to 6d.
The kindness of the Transport Tribunal in thinking of the interests of London Transport, and the miscalculations the Tribunal made, led to London Transport having a loss of £10 million last year.
We know very well that boards like the Prices and Incomes Board are tremendously sensitive to consumer and public opinion, and do not look at the problems of the supplier. We also know that the G.L.C. has been trying to raise council house rents in the London area, in my view quite justifiably. It has been limited by the Prices and Incomes Board; it wanted an increase of 10s., and this has been limited to 7s. 6d. This sort of action could be taken by the Prices and Incomes Board in the future in relation to London Transport, and if it does London Transport will be forced into the red.
If that is done by Government agencies such as the Prices and Incomes Board, it is the fault of the Government, and the Government will have to stand the racket. That is why it is of paramount importance that the Amendment should be made, to prevent the Prices and Incomes Board from making the kind of stupid mistakes it has made in the past and will very likely make again in the future.
The Amendment would prevent it from making such mistakes and from thus stopping London Transport from being commercially viable. It would make it clear that if such action happens the Government must pay for the mistakes being made by their own boards, just as they are having to pay for the mistakes of the Transport Tribunal in 1966, when

fares were not put up when they should have been, as a result of which they are introducing the Bill and writing off the losses.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: The argument the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) has just advanced is rather sinister. He has suggested that in certain ways the Prices and Incomes Board is virtually told what to do by the Government. I totally reject this suggestion. Everybody who has read any of the board's reports knows that their whole basis is that the board is entirely independent of anything the Government tell it to do.
But if, on the basis of that suggestion, the hon. Gentleman is to say that my constituents and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) should help to bale out London ratepayers, this is something I am bound to resist. We have had many cases where the London Transport Executive's application for a fares increase has been rejected out of hand or dithered with for political advantage. Both parties have done it. But if we are to have this type of thing in the future I want the results of such decisions to be confined locally and not spread over all the taxpayers.
I am not at all against general taxation making certain fixed and definite contributions to the London Transport Executive's general finances, provided those contributions are fixed and known.
If the lion. Gentleman is coming to the House and saying that my constituents, through their income tax contributions, should help his party, or any party, to win local elections in London—this is what it comes down to—I am totally against it. We are dealing with a situation where fares increases and applications for fares increases are bound to be among the most sensitive decisions with which the new body, which is controlled by the Greater London Council, will have to deal. Other organisations like this throughout the world have had similar difficulties about the fixing of the levels of fares and the way in which, if they are not allowed to go up, they are to be subsidised.
I still say that the essence of this new local transport system ought to be to make it locally financially supported; not supported by taxpayers throughout


the country, except in very definite fixed circumstances, and certainly not in the general way proposed. For the hon. Gentleman, representing a party which is always advocating cuts in public expenditure, to come forward with a proposal which will increase public expenditure, I find inconsistent, illogical and plain nasty.

Mr. Lubbock: One thing has puzzled me as I have listened to the debate on the Amendment. If a recommendation for fares increases is referred to the Prices and Incomes Board and the London Transport Executive still has to operate within the financial responsibilities that we were discussing on an earlier Clause—

Mrs. Thatcher: It was discussed upstairs.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Lady reminds me that it was discussed upstairs. I have not had the opportunity of re-reading that part of the Committee proceedings, so perhaps the Minister will say a word about it.
I do not want to hold up the proceedings, but it seems a point of substance if we have laid down these financial criteria. I argued earlier that it should not be so rigid, but we have passed a Clause which states that the London Transport Executive has to make a profit in one year equivalent to the loss it has made in a previous year. If the recommendation for a fares increase is referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, for reasons of wider public importance, it may well decide that it is not appropriate to make an increase at this time. It could well happen, for instance, that next year the London Transport Executive might find itself in the red again, despite the large increases which the N.B.P.I. is now permitting. But I am sure, having read its recent Report, Cmnd. 4036, that the board would say that it is inappropriate to make any further adjustments to fare levels pending the introduction of decimal currency in February, 1971. It would be correct to reach this conclusion to avoid two lots of fare changes within a short period of time.
I ask the Minister: how will we be able to reconcile the wider aspects of public policy which have to be considered by Mr. Aubrey Jones and his

Board with the more limited objectives which we have already specified and laid down in the Bill concerning the London Transport Executive? If there is a conflict here I hope that the Government will give it some attention so that, before the Bill goes to another place, that conflict can be reconciled and we will not ask the Prices and Incomes Board and the Executive to do impossible things.
Captain W. Elliot: In Committee, we had a demonstration of the split political personality of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield). He seems to argue any way that he likes. Is it sad to see this trait developing in one so young. Of course, the Government often give selective help.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that, in comparison with the youngest Member of the House, I am now comparatively old.

8.15 p.m.

Captain Elliot: I accept that. Of course, the Government often give selective help. I cannot say offhand, but I should not be surprised if Nuneaton is getting selective help for development. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm or deny that.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving me the chance to raise this matter. This is one thing that I have long advocated, but have not yet succeeded in getting.

Captain Elliot: That illustrates the hon. Gentleman's split personality. He expects London income tax payers to support Nuneaton, but when the Government interfere, for national reasons, in recommendations for fares increases, thereby possibly imposing a burden on London ratepayers, he suggests that his constituents should not help to make up the difference.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Nuneaton is fortunate. It gets a very large grant from the Government to the Motor Industry Research Association, which helps to employ—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the Amendment.

Captain Elliot: I think that I had better get on. We are getting a little wide.
The Parliamentary Secretary is now in charge on the Front Bench. We know him to be a most reasonable man. I hope that now that his right hon. Friend the Minister has departed we will get a concession from him over this matter.
I would point out one thing. For all the Amendments that we have put forward the burden of nearly all the arguments from the Government Front Bench and hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), has been that we should not interfere or restrict in any way by writing into the Bill such things as might have that effect on the operations of the G.L.C. and the London Transport Executive. It is argued that we must leave it to them to decide.
If we use those arguments rejecting our earlier Amendments, why, if the Government think it desirable to interfere, for reasons of national policy—and I appreciate we cannot go into the details—and that adversely affects the London ratepayers financially, should not the Government of the day make up the difference?

Mr. Manuel: I am at a loss to understand what the Amendment means. I did not have the benefit of being present during the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not know whether there were great debates about the Prices and Incomes Board. I cannot imagine that they would be in order if there were. I cannot find any reference to the Prices and Incomes Board in Clause 11.

Mr. Lubbock: When Clause 11 was discussed in Committee, the board's recommendations on London fares had not then been published, so I do not think much attention would be paid to it.

Mr. Manuel: This is hypothetical. We are looking into the future. It appears that there is a great possibility there will not be any recommendation from the N.B.P.I. when this comes in. But I do not know. If there are so many "don't knows", it appears to be a hypothetical situation that we are envisaging. Even though this was to come in, I think that it would be wrong to adopt the words in the Amendment which, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) said, would have the result that people in Central Ayrshire would be helping to subsidise London Transport. We may have a few holiday makers coming here occasionally, but their object is not to assist London Members' constituents to run their transport on the cheap.

Captain W. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, but I mentioned earlier that some hon. Members might be surprised at the ramifications of the London Transport Executive, because it may be working in their constituencies. If the executive is working at a loss, and the G.L.C. is allowed to subsidise certain activities, London ratepayers may be subsidising the hon. Gentleman's constituents.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about the other extraneous duties to be placed on the executive, and the G.L.C. reaping profits from these various undertakings. I have no fear of that. London ratepayers will be helped. If private enterprise can make a go of filling stations, and so on, as envisaged in the Bill, I am certain that the G.L.C. will make a success of this.
It is not good enough for hon. Gentlemen opposite to underestimate the sagacity and intelligence of the members of their party who are in control of the G.L.C., and not to trust them an inch. They should not try to tie the G.L.C. in this way. They ought to have a little more political faith in these people who work so hard for them in the London area.

Mr. Bob Brown: The implication of the Amendment is that the London Transport Executive should be place in a special position with regard to the prices and incomes legislation, in so far as the Government are to meet any financial shortfall that might be involved as a result of a standstill order. Clearly, this is a preposterous suggestion.
The Amendment accepts that the actual fares charged should conform with what the Prices and Incomes Board recommends, but it goes on to suggest that the Government, rather than the authority concerned, are to take the financial responsibility. If we took the matter to what might be said to be a rather absurd limit, we could have a


situation where we had the G.L.C. spoiling for a fight with the Government of the day. The L.T.E. could submit, and the G.L.C. could approve fares increases of a quite outrageous nature, contravening completely the terms of the prices and incomes policy, The Government would then have to pick up the cheque when these increases were properly delayed by the board.
The short answer clearly must be that the Government could not contemplate taking on any such liability. The prices and incomes legislation is to apply to fares increases by London Transport which will no longer be subject to control by an independent tribunal in the form of the Transport Tribunal. It is for the G.L.C. and the L.T.E. as responsible public bodies to take account of the policy in formulating and approving fares increases proposals so as to ensure that no occasion for Government intervention arises.

Mrs. Thatcher: Once again that is a bit of a weak answer. The Minister has a weak case, and it is therefore not surprising that he did not put it very well.
Let us look at the position we have reached. We have said to the G.L.C. "You must not run this outfit at a deficit."

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: No.

Mrs. Thatcher: We have said in the Bill that the G.L.C. must not run London Transport Executive at a deficit. That is in Clause 7. Under subsection (3)(b) of that Clause we have said that the outfit must not run for two years in succession at a deficit, that in the second year any shortfall must be made up. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will look at that subsection. We have laid that obligation on the new authority.
Suppose the new authority says, "If we are not to run at a deficit, we must raise fares in a certain way". The Minister agrees, and then says, as he can do now, "I am going to refer the proposal to the Prices and Incomes Board".

Mr. Manuel: That is hypothetical.

Mrs. Thatcher: It is not. This year a proposal to increase fares has been referred to the board. Last year a proposal to increase fares was also referred

to the board. On that occasion the board agreed to an increase, but part of it was delayed by the Minister. This year the board has agreed to an increase to take effect some time in the autumn. We do not know when that "sometime in the autumn" will be, so that is nothing hypothetical about it at the moment. The Minister has power to refer a proposed increase to the board.
Suppose the board says, "If you run the organisation in a different way you need not have these fare increases", and the Minister then says, "All right. I shall delay the fare increases." There is here an inherent contradiction. The council has an obligation not to run at a deficit. It then says that if it is to carry out that obligation it must have a fare increase, but the Minister replies that it is not to have that increase.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: No.

Mrs. Thatcher: I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Amendment.

Mr. Huckfield: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Thatcher: Not at the moment. The Amendment says:
… where as a result of a recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes the implementation of those proposals is delayed by the Minister".
The Minister says, "I shall delay the proposal for an increase in fares". There is an inherent contradiction. The G.L.C. must not run at a deficit, but the Minister denies the council the increase necessary to enable it to run at a surplus. Therefore at that moment the Minister has power without responsibility. He has power to delay the increase, but he does not have the responsibility of facing the financial implications of his decision.

Mr. Huckfield: Does the hon. Lady admit that though the obligation to be placed on the executive not to run at a deficit will be in the Act, the present difficulties to which she referred are caused basically by the dogmatic insistence of the Conservative G.L.C. that this new body shall make a profit of £2 million?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry, but I did not get the full import of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As things are


at the moment, the Prices and Incomes Board has agreed to an increase to come into effect in the autumn.
Equally, as things are, to the extent that an increase is delayed the Minister already has power, between now and vesting day, to make a grant to cover that deficit. He has that power under Clause 19. The Minister has power at the moment to make a grant from the hon. Member's constituents in order to make up the deficit arising from a delay in the implementation of the proposal.
The Amendment provides that if there is a conflict between the necessity to run at a surplus and a refusal to allow fare increases, the Minister shall have power to make a grant—it is not that he must do so, but that he shall have power to do so—and to make good any loss of revenue to the Executive. Doubtless the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and other hon. Members would make representations to the Minister whether or not he used that power, but without it the Minister can stop an increase which is necessary for the G.L.C. to carry out its obligations under the Bill. That is an absolute nonsense.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Lady is basing a great deal of her argument upon Clause 7(3)(b). Does she agree that although the Prices and Incomes Board can make its recommendations the Minister, whoever he may be, in deciding whether to agree to the recommendations, delay them or refuse them, is also bound by that paragraph?

8.30 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prices and Incomes Board may be bound by that paragraph, but it may say, "If the L.T.E. ran its undertaking in a different way we do not believe that a deficit would arise." That is one of the problems that arise in respect of references to the Prices and Incomes Board. The board sometimes makes recommendations on productivity which for many reasons are not easy to carry out. There are many conflicts. It is clear that the hon. Member is really on my side. We are both saying that if there is a resultant decision which prevents a fares increase, which in turn prevents the executive from carrying out

its responsibilities under Clause 7(3)(b), the Minister shall have power to make good that loss.
To support my argument I point out that at the moment, until vesting day, the Minister has power under Clause 19. I am asking only that the position should be perpetuated, because any Minister should be made to face the consequences of his own decision.

Mr. Bob Brown: I have listened carefully to all that the hon. Lady has said, and it merely leads me to the conclusion that she is now trying to argue a weak case even harder. I find it difficult to get anything out of what she said. Why should the G.L.C. be treated differently from any other major local authority? Other major local authorities run their own passenger transport systems, and when they run into trouble they have to go to the traffic commissioners for a fares increase. If the traffic commissioners say "No," they have to adopt other courses. The same courses are open to the G.L.C.

Mrs. Thatcher: How many of those authorities are under an identical obligation laid down in Clause 7(3)(b)? That is the relevant point.

Mr. Brown: The same type of thing applies to the passenger transport executives. I ask why the G.L.C. or the L.T.E. should be treated differently from any other passenger transport authority or executive—because they are all charged with breaking even and if they do not succeed they have to impose a rate levy on the constituent authorities. London is in no different position.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) about the ratepayers generally. The provincial ratepayers have bailed out London Transport for far too long.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 18

PROVISIONS AS TO PENSIONS FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 21, line 39, leave out 'that subsection' and insert the said subsection (4)'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

Clause 23

REGULATION OF SERVICES BY PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES IN AND AROUND LONDON

Mr. Berry: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 28, line 42, leave out 'express' and insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time the following Amendments: No. 14, in page 27, line 7, leave out 'express'; No. 15, in page 29, line 13, after second 'of', insert 'stage carriages or'; No. 16, in page 29, line 18, after second 'of' insert 'stage carriages or'; No. 17, in page 29, line 21, leave out 'of express carriages'; No. 18, in page 29, line 31, leave out 'of express carriages'; and No. 19, in page 29, line 40, leave out 'an express' and insert 'a'.

Mr. Berry: These Amendments are all completely interlinked.
We come now to another old friend from the Committee stage, the question of express services and stage services. I must confess to a little disappointment. In replying to our earlier debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that there might be something in my point and that he wanted another look at it. So I expected to find these Amendments tabled in the Minister's name, but once again I am disappointed.
The Amendments would change the definition to cover a feeder service in respect of not only the services of express carriages but also those of stage carriages. An express service is distinguishable from a stage service because the former has no fare of less than Is. In our debate in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not think that the Minister
… could willingly connive at any L.T.E. empire-building by raising the shilling limit.
I am sure that is so at the moment, but neither he nor I can say what might happen in future.
There is also the question of excursions or tours under the Bill, covered by the general term "services of express carriages". These may be operated on the road service licences as stage services, as well as express services. At the

moment, there are few, if any, stage excursions or tours, but this may not always be the case, and we must look ahead in legislation of this kind.
I will not refer the House to the 1930 Act, to which I referred in detail in Committee, but my first point concerns the grants refunding some part of the fuel tax to operators of stage services only. Is it possible for express services, converted by regulation into stage carriage services, to become eligible for the bus fuel grant? The Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that he could not envisage that, but he then added:
There is, however, just that chance, … I want to have another look at the matter.
I hope that he does have another look at it.
Second, the holder of a licence, of course, has discretion as to whether or not to operate the service and, if so, as to the times at which he should operate it. The proposed definition of an express feeder service is adequate now, but once again we have our doubts about the future. So the object of these Amendments is to reframe the definition of an express feeder service and make it just a feeder service. The Parliamentary Secretary said that,
… subject only to Traffic Commissioner control"—
he was clear that—
there was a real impediment to the Executive's freedom of manoeuvre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 1st May, 1969; c. 368–9.]
I did not question him at that time, but I am not clear why he felt this, and I should like an explanation also about that.

Mr. Bob Brown: Operators of express feeder services will be exempt from the need to seek the L.T.E.'s agreement to running their express feeder services within Greater London so long as they are definable as buses connecting into or out of express services, and have no separate fares for the feeder journey. That answers one of the hon. Member's points.
If the dividing line of the 1s. fare were raised, this would be for reasons totally unconnected with express feeder services—for example, to redefine eligibility for bus fuel grants. If this were to happen the danger to independent feeder operators would be extremely minimal. If there


were to be any serious threat to operators it would be reasonable to introduce protective provisions, but this is hardly a matter for statutory protection, since such a move would be disproportionately complex compared with the very small point that is at issue. There are no practical dangers involved here, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Although the Minister says that no practical dangers are involved, my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) pointed out that we are not concerned only with the present. What may occur in the future is our prime worry. We are as aware as the hon. Gentleman that the number of express feeder services is limited. However, this concept could develop and real concern would follow a redefinition of "stage carriages". Should such a redefining process involve the maximum fare being increased from the equivalent of its present 1s. rate to what would be applicable in a redefined version—say 5s.—and if express feeder operators then came within the definition of "stage carriages", there could be considerable difficulty.
At present private operators enjoy the protection of knowing that the L.T.E. must go to the traffic commissioners for permission to run feeder services. If the definition of "stage carriages" were changed, there could be general permissiveness for the L.T.E. to operate express feeder services without application to the traffic commissioners.
Would the Minister resolve this problem by saying that should the definition of "stage carriages" be changed from the 1s. figure which is at present relevant, he would be prepared to look again at the effects on the private sector from the point of view of bringing in a wider range of express feeder services than would come within the operation of the L.T.E.?

Mr. Brown: I can give the hon. Gentleman a reasonable assurance in that if such a remote eventuality occurred, I feel certain that the L.T.E. would behave reasonably, if only for the sake of continuity, since it would have to co-operate in reaching agreement to allow any operator to continue running his feeder services,

at any rate for the time being, on the present basis.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: That is not the assurance I am seeking. I am trying to persuade the hon. Gentleman to say that the Ministry, in drafting legislation which changed the definition of "stage carriages", would consider this problem rather than leave it to the L.T.E.

Mr. Brown: If the limit were altered, even to 5s., then not many express services would change to stage carriages. That is why I referred more than once to this eventuality being virtually negligible.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: While the risk in absolute terms may not affect a large number of people, it could be of considerable consequence, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear this matter in mind.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 26

GRANTS ON REFUSAL OF MINISTER'S CONSENT TO CLOSURE BY EXECUTIVE

Amendment made: Amendment No. 20, in page 31, line 41, leave out 'then, if' and insert 'and'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

Clause 28

FIXING OF CERTAIN CHARGES BY RAILWAYS BOARD

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 33, line 43, after 'London', insert:
'and as to the general level of the provision to be made for such journeys'.
In Standing Committee on 1st May I agreed to consult the G.L.C. and the Railways Board about an Opposition Amendment seeking to impose on the Railways Board a duty to consult annually the G.L.C. on the level of provision for its passenger services in Greater London.
The G.L.C. will be closely involved in the level of service matters on B.R.B. services, both inside Greater London and on the London commuter network generally. It will be involved through the consultation on the financial objectives for


the network provided in the Clause, and also through its participation with the Minister and the Railways Board in the transport planning machinery generally.
The G.L.C. has, in addition, specific powers under Clause 3 to pay grants to the Railways Board for any transport service and, if it wishes the B.R.B. to make special arrangements in any particular case it can offer to pay. Thus, which there is no intention of handing over B.R.B. services to the L.T.E., the G.L.C. is involved in their overall planning in its rôle for looking at transport in London as a whole. The Minister therefore agrees that it would be useful to the G.L.C. if it were to be consulted annually by the Railways Board on the level of passenger services. This Amendment, and Amendment No. 22, impose this duty on the Board. The G.L.C. has no objection to them.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It will be agreed on all sides that the Opposition have striven long and arduously to improve the legislation. I am glad that this small example of our work is acceptable to the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: Amendment No. 22, in page 33, line 45, leave out 'made for such journeys' and insert 'so to be made'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

Clause 36

CONTROL OF OFF-STREET PARKING

Captain W. Elliot: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 43, line 30 after 'place', insert:
'provided that any such person authorised by the local authority or the Council shall have specialised training for this responsibility'.
The Clause, as drafted, not only enforces the most stringent and detailed conditions before a licence for off-street parking is granted, but it is backed up by indiscriminate inspection. I use the word "indiscriminate", because subsection (5)(a) states that:
… any person authorised … by the Council …
may carry out a detailed inspection of a parking area. That detailed inspection may, as we know, include taking extracts from any accounts or other records.
It is not uncommon for inspectors to be appointed for various purposes, but the operators of these parking places have the right to expect that a suitably qualified person will be sent. These operators are busy people. They do not want to have to waste time on teaching an inspector what he should get out of the accounts, and he will not be able to get out anything worth while unless he is taught. That work could take up to half a day, which is unreasonable. The Amendment would mean that only properly qualified persons could be sent by the council. The Parliamentary Secretary may argue that that is what they do anyhow, but I am not sure that they would do so. They may not recruit proper personnel but may send someone to do this work who does not know what he is looking for. I sincerely hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this small, but important, Amendment.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) said that he sincerely hoped that my hon. Friend would accept this Amendment. Equally sincerely, I hope that he will not. The hon. and gallant Member has done great service in the Royal Navy. Parts of Queen's Regulations specify that an officer or rating shall do certain duties. If a civilian came along and said that such a person should have specialised training for those duties there would be howls of protest from the hon. and gallant Member.
I do not know whether he has had experience of any local authority, whether Greater London Council or the smallest parish council in the country, but he should know that no local authority would send to this kind of job any Tom, Dick or Harry, however distinguished personally and however menial the task. Local authorities take the greatest care to see that those who have to undertake duties on their behalf are properly qualified. The fact that this Amendment appears on the Notice Paper after the discussion we had in Committee will be bitterly resented by many who have given good service to local authorities.
I hope that my hon. Friend will reject the Amendment as forcefully as possible.

Mr. Bob Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), for he has forcibly answered the argument put by


the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). Particularly bearing in mind the debate we had in Committee, it is clear that the hon. and gallant Member casts doubt on the responsibility of local authorities. I repeat what I said in Committee; I have complete confidence in the local authorities and those employed by them, and the Amendment is completely needless.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I had not sought to intervene in this debate because I thought my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Capt. W. Elliot) made the points which needed to be made, but I am getting tired of hon. Members opposite deliberately distorting the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary knows better than to do that. We argued this matter out in Committee. He knows the anxiety we have that the bureaucracy set up to deal with this legislation should be of a sort and of a sufficient extent that the large number of people who are not strictly employees of local authorities and are brought in to help with this work shall be qualified.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) know this. It has been explained fully. Yet today they have deliberately tried to make cheap party points in the hope of telling everyone what a marvellous job they are doing for local government. They will need to do a great deal more than that to avoid the appalling difficulties they are getting into.

Mr. Ogden: How can one be either a partial employee of a local authority or not a partial employee? He is either employed in local government service or he is not so employed.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I spelled this out in Committee. It may be necessary to use traffic wardens. They have been used for an increasingly large number of functions which were previously carried out by the police. This is precisely the kind of work they could be considered fit to do, but they do not always come up to the standard required.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Someone should intervene to correct the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), who has given rise to so many misunderstandings in the past, including the editorial

which appeared in the Daily Sketch on 7th May, which said the kind of thing he claimed in Standing Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is deliberately trying to evade the point.
The argument we have always made is that in city centres there are certain situations and sites where a great deal of money can be made by charging for parking and that such places should be under surveillance and inspection. We are not in favour of bureaucracy on this side of the House but we do not favour people being able to make private profit out of public land in city centres, the value of which the community has created.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) has made this puerile charge time and again, and it is well-established that his target is a national organisation which indulges in this activity. He has never produced a shred of evidence to substantiate the snide allegations which he continually tries to make on this important subject, and we all know that there is no evidence.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 43, line 37, at end insert:
'but if any such person discloses to any other person otherwise than in the performance of his duty any information with regard to the operation of that parking place or to any trade secret obtained by him at that parking place or from any such examination, or if any member or officer of the local authority to whom any such information is disclosed by reason of his official position discloses that information to any other person otherwise than in the performance of his duty, that person or, as the case may be, that member or officer shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100'.
The effect is to make it an offence for any member or officer of the G.L.C. or of a London borough to disclose, other than in the performance of his duty, any any information which he may glean by an inspection. It covers wrongful disclosure of information both by the person carrying out the inspection of the car park and by any local authority member or officer to whom that information is passed in the course of duty.
This provision will be particularly helpful to local authority staff in resisting any improper approaches from criminal elements which seem to hang


around the Metropolis from time to time. The Amendment provides only a second line of defence because, as I have emphasised before, the first line of defence is the high standard of integrity of local authority members and staff.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the Amendment. It is along the lines of one I moved in Committee. This is a valuable end important point. Large sums of money are involved in multi-storey car parks, and thousands of £s can be involved every day. There is a danger from criminals wanting to find out how much money is going through, and, of course, there is also danger from competitors who might want to do a little industrial espionage.
The danger from criminal elements is not to be underrated. I gave examples in Committee of criminals approaching secretaries and typists in insurance companies to try to obtain copies of lists of insured properties so that the houses could be burgled. That is the kind of approach that can be made by the criminal fraternity. The Amendment is, therefore, a protection to the official against any person who approaches him in that he can say that it would be a criminal offence if he handed over a copy or a statement of any kind about a car park.
I welcome this provision. I am sure that officials will welcome it because it will be of help to them. It will certainly be of help to the operators of car parks in London.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ogden: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) into the esoteric realms of industrial espionage, fascinating thought it is to think of some smart character approaching a mini-skirted secretary and saying, "Tell me your secrets". All this Amendment would do in such a case would be to put up the price by £100 if he were caught.
To show my impartiality in this matter, I objected to Amendment No. 24, which we have just disposed of, and I do not think that this Amendment is much better. In my view, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has given way, though, perhaps in good faith. I can envisage many more important things which local government officers have to

do and many more valuable secrets which they have to keep than those relating to car parks, but they are not covered under regulations by a fine of £100 if an officer talks about a planning development application, a road scheme, or something of that sort.
In my view, this Amendment is unnecessary and undesirable, and it does my hon. Friend no credit.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The House will not have missed the implication of the Government's refusal of our proposal in Amendment No. 24 on the ground that one could trust the local authorities and they were beyond reproach, and their immediate moving of this Amendment which would fine officials of a local authority, apparently on the justification that it is better to have some sort of sanction which officials can use as a means of excusing themselves for not committing crimes.

Mr. Bob Brown: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that this Amendment is different from the one which the Opposition sought to introduce, which would have sent local authority servants to prison on summary conviction.
I reiterate what I said earlier. I should be very surprised if this penalty ever had to be inflicted. I am convinced that local authority staffs are in the main—I almost said without exception—people of outstanding character.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 43, line 37, at end insert:
Provided that such accounts as may be examined by any such person shall not include the general profit and loss accounts kept by the holder of the licence for the purposes of his business.
The Parliamentary Secretary will recall the discussion we had in Committee about the powers of inspectors to look at operators' accounts. The hon. Gentleman then said:
I emphasise that the accounts"—
that is, the accounts to be inspected—
are not the general profit and loss accounts but only the accounts which the operator will be required to keep by the conditions of his licence … There is no intention whatever that local authority representatives should have a general power to examine all books


and accounts, including those which a car park operator might keep for his own private business purposes".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th May, 1969; c. 461.]
The hon. Gentleman gave that excellent assurance. I have put the effect of it into words in this Amendment. I am sure that he will have no difficulty in accepting it.

Mr. Bob Brown: I wish it were as easy to accept the Amendment as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) suggested. We are not, however, entirely happy about its wording, which might enable an operator to evade the inspection provisions by including all his accounts in his general profit and loss accounts.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want this type of facility to be available to an individual of questionable character operating a car park. The clear intention is that inspection should not include the general profit and loss accounts. I am instructed by the Minister to say that he will carefully consider when the Bill goes to another place how he can make the intention clearer.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the spirit of the Amendment and for saying that he will see what can be done. We do not want the accounts to be open to inspection at all, but one-tenth of a loaf is better than no loaf.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: At last the hon. Members for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) have given themselves away. They want as little surveillance of these matters as possible because they know that once an operator gets possession of derelict land and a licence he is in a very privileged position. Once he gets hold of a parking permit and permission to accommodate cars, often at exorbitant charges every day, the last thing that they want the taxpayers and ratepayers to know is how much profit he makes.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I feel that since such privileges are to be conferred on operators of parking facilities in city centres, the first thing that we should know, apart from their charges, is how much profit they are making. I have always said that this kind of operation

should be confined to local authorities so that the benefit goes to the community and not to private speculators.

Mrs. Thatcher: In so far as profit is made, the accounts will be available to the inspector of taxes and tax will be paid on it. The inspector is the proper authority for looking at accounts. We do not deny that in any way.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, because that serves only to substantiate my point; namely, that these operators are the sort of people who engage in a whole range of activities. National Car Parks, the favourite example of the hon. Member for Twickenham, operates not only car parking spaces but garages. If this concern is to operate facilities of this kind, it is vital that in the public interest people should know how much they are being milked and being used in making profits and how much those profits contribute to the general profits and losses of the company.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not know why the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) should introduce these unpleasant accusations. I was trying to be friendly and helpful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who had graciously done what I wished to be done in Amendment No. 25. He has acceded to the principle of Amendment No. 26. I thought that we were in a happy atmosphere.
However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to indulge in that kind of argument, there is plenty of time to do so. I could prove that the Bill is very bureaucratic and widely drawn and gives room for snooping by all sorts of inspectors if wrongly used. However, in view of the pleasant way in which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bob Brown: I be to move Amendment No. 27, in page 44, line 30, at end insert—
'by giving notice in writing for the purpose to the local authority which shall include a statement certifying either that the holder is the only person entitled to any interest in the licensed premises or that not less than twenty-one days before the date of the notice the holder has notified all other persons known to him to be so entitled of his intention to serve the notice'.


The Amendment provides that where a car park operator wishes to surrender his licence, he should, if other people have interests in the premises, notify them of his intentions before giving up the licence. This has to be done by the operator sending with his surrender notice a certificate saying either that he is the only interested party or that anybody else concerned with the car park's operation has been given at least 21 days' notice of his intentions to give the business up. This provision is paralleled by one in the Planning Acts.
The liaison envisaged in the Amendment is likely to be carried out as a normal commercial practice, but the object of the Amendment is simply to underpin this.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 45, line 14, after 'licence', insert:
'and who does not show that the contravention or failure was due to an act or omission of a person not connected with the operation of the licensed parking place which the persons so connected could not reasonably have been expected to prevent'.
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the operator of a car park does not commit an offence where a breach of the conditions of his licence results from the action of the public over which he might have little control; for example, the type of situation discussed in Committee where a member of the public parks his car in a section of the car park earmarked for short-term parking and overstays the limit, or even leaves his car there for several days.
It would not be right to penalise the operator for such actions, and the Amendment accordingly provides that the operator will be guilty of an offence, and thus liable to a fine and the possibility of revocation of his licence, only if the breach of the condition of the licence results from a deliberate act or omission on his part.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Amendment covers part of the Bill which is crucial to the future of long-term investment in car parks. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues in the Ministry know what a magnificent job has been done by the private investor in the provision of off-street car parks. He

is equally aware that the company named by his hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is the largest operator, usually in partnership with, or as the agent of, the local authorities. I assume that it is reasonable to conclude that a degree of service and non-exploitation is involved in the partnership, or it would not be repeated time and again by one local authority after another.
I believe that it is the intention of the company ultimately to go public and then the hon. Gentleman will have all the information he requires, and if he has any sense he might buy some shares in the company, so that he can join in the exploitation—

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I cannot afford to.

Mr. Heseltine: Few of us these days can afford any form of capital saving as a result of the Government's activities. The hon. Gentleman is no exception to this general rule.
My main concern here is the point completely avoided by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—the effect on the investor who lends his money to the operator for the provision of off-street car parking if the operator is guilty of an offence leading to successful prosecution and revocation of licence there is nothing in the Amendment to protect the investor.
This is not a party point, and I beg the hon. Gentleman to look at the question again when the Bill goes to another place, because it is crucial that private resources continue to be made available for the building of off-street parking facilities. If such investments, usually made by large institutional investors, are put at risk as a result of one, albeit serious, mistake by an operator, this must have the effect of tending to dry up the supply of investment finance. It is not enough to try to protect the operator from the vagaries of the general public. It is esential to protect the investor from the vagaries of the operator.
I beg the Ministry to find a way of covering the situation where the investor may have put as much as £200,000 in a company and the operators have lost the licence. The result of the revocation of the licence would be that there would be no way for the investor who had lent money to the company to claim a charge


on a valuable asset. All that would be left would be the bricks and mortar, which would not carry the licence to operate a garage. This crucial point should be dealt with before the Bill becomes law.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 46, line 22, leave out from 'mean' to end of line 25 and insert—
'parking for a continuous period exceeding, or, as the case may be, not exceeding, four hours or such longer period as may be prescribed'.
9.15 p.m.
This Amendment will enable the Greater London Council, through its regulations, to introduce flexibility into the definition of long-term and short-term parking. Subsection (14) draws a rigid boundary between these two categories of parking, depending on whether the motorist stays for more than or up to four hours. The council will be able to prescribe differently for different circumstances or areas.
The definition is important, as the control of charges and the allocation of parking spaces may be made in relation to the various categories of parking specified in subsection 4(b), two important categories being long-term and short-term parking.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has moved the Amendment, since, again, we drew this matter to his attention. The scheme as originally envisaged was too inflexible and parking rules were based on exactly four hours. We pointed out that many people would want to park for periods other than four-hour periods, and many different circumstances would arise in different parts of the country.
The Amendment meets with the points of criticism which we made earlier.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4

LICENCES OR CONSENTS FOR CERTAIN EXISTING SERVICES

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 65, line 36, leave out paragraph 4.

Mr. Speaker: It will be for the convenience of the House if we take also Amendments Nos. 32, in page 65, line 49, leave out 'under paragraph 4 of this Schedule'.
No. 33, in page 66, line 2, leave out 'that person' and insert 'the holder of the consent'.
No. 34, in line 22, leave out 'continued in force or granted under this Schedule'.
No. 36, in line 42, leave out 'continued in force or granted under this Schedule'.
No. 43, in page 67, line 37, leave out 'continued in force or granted under this Schedule'.

Mr. Heseltine: The point dealt with in this part of Schedule 4 is where an owner of a permanent consent granted under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, sells or disposes of his consent to a person referred to in the legislation as a successor in title. The permanent consents granted under the 1933 Act were deliberately granted on a permanent basis, with no form of revocation, and in the course of the legislation and the revisions to it it was agreed that permanent consents should continue. Paragraph 4 of the Schedule deals with a situation where permanent consents have changed hands, and it is now proposed that they should not remain permanent consents but should become temporary consents.
This would make it extremely difficult for anybody to sell a permanent consent, which is a legitimate asset of the owners of that consent, because the moment it changes hands it ceases to be permanent, and this must have an immediate effect upon the asset valuation.
The consents were deliberately granted as permanent as part of the deal that was done in the reorganisation of passenger transport in 1933. The consents were given as compensation to those who had to deal with and live with the monopoly situation granted to London Transport. It is totally immoral to introduce legislation which turns permanent consents into temporary consents, and I can see no case for it. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look again at this, as the Minister agreed to look at the whole question of permanent consents when the legislation was drawn.

Mr. Bob Brown: If the Amendment were accepted, paragraph 4 would be


deleted and paragraph 5 would provide that any successor in title must receive a consent in similar terms to that enjoyed by the previous holder. Thus if a permanent consent was involved, the successor in title would himself receive a permanent consent.
Given that the number of permanent consents is extremely small, and given that we have removed from the Bill the provisions relating to the revocation of permanent consents, it might have been reasonable to make this minor change to enable a successor in title to the holder of of a permanent consent to enjoy the permanent rights involved.
As against this, it must be pointed out that where a permanent consent has been granted by the L.P.T.B. under the provisions of the 1933 Act, a successor in title to the holder of such a consent has not at the moment any right to a permanent consent himself.
There appears to be no good reason for being more generous in relation to this particular form of consent under the new arrangements than has been the case under the old arrangement. I ask the House to resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 66, line 24, leave out 'one' and insert 'three'.
The Parliamentary Secretary in refusing to agree that permanent consent should remain permanent consents has brought us to this Amendment, which deals with the period for which the consents which replace the permanent consents when there has been a change in ownership should run.
Schedule 4 provides for the new consents to run for a period of a year. This Amendment substitutes for that period one of three years.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the effect upon investment of an agreement which it will be necessary for the holder of a temporary consent to make for one year. A one-year consent is not a reasonable period on the basis of which to make a capital decision about an investment in the bus industry. Assuming that a holder is acting in a bona fide manner, it is a prejudice under

which it would be unreasonable to expect those who required a permanent consent to operate.
We feel that there ought to be a three-year period in which to plan investment and expect some sort of return. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, having failed to help us on the major issue, will agree that the detail can be modified in this way.

Mr. Bob Brown: The point is not one of enormous substance, but as a matter of general principle, as the Minister told the hon. Lady in a letter, we hope that the majority of operators in Greater London, rather than relying on the continuation of consent provisions which are merely intended to protect existing rights, will enter into agreements with the L.T.E. which can be for any period.
As a matter of practice, the London Transport Board at the moment grants consents on an annual basis, and operators have learned to manage their businesses accordingly. We feel it best to leave it in this way.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in line 45, after 'consent', insert—
'including any provision, whether or not expressed as a condition, relating to the route of the services to which the consent relates'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment the House can take the linked Amendments No. 38, in page 67, line 2, after 'variation', insert—
'(other than a variation of route)'.
No. 39, in line 4, after 'are', insert' 'on the same journey'.
No. 40, in line 16, at end insert—
'but this sub-paragraph shall not apply to a variation of route certified by the Executive, in the notice given under sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph, to be urgently necessary'.
and No. 41, in line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.

Mr. Heseltine: The Parliamentary Secretary, in urging that the holders of consents should renegotiate and replace them by a form of agreement with the L.T.E., must know that the tenure of the agreements is in no way satisfactory to the owners under agreements


as is the situation whereby the present operators might own permanent consents.
This brings us to paragraph 10 of Schedule 4, which deals with the situation which would arise where the owner of a consent wished to vary the route of service.
Paragraph 10 is very tightly drawn. Variations in routes can take place only if they are of a minor nature. Were it anything other than of a minor nature, it would be necessary for the consent to lapse and presumably for some form of agreement to be negotiated to take its place. It is an extremely harsh situation if, as traffic routes change, the holders of consents are forced to move to the far less satisfactory position of having to negotiate agreements.
The purpose of these Amendments is to delete paragraph 10 and give to the executive the power to deal with variations in routes under paragraph 9, under which it can deal with other matters. In equity, I should have thought that the matter should be dealt with in that way. To do otherwise would strengthen the hand of the executive, to which owners of consents would find it necessary to yield regardless of the terms that they were offered in replacement of their consents.

Mr. Bob Brown: There is some fundamental difference between us here. Clearly, on the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, we could have a situation existing where a service from, say, Kings Cross to Brixton could go via Slough or even Reading, and I do not think that would be very desirable. The Amendments would clearly mean that anyone running an existing little service could extend it to routes which are covered quite adequately already by the L.T.E. I think that is the hon. Gentleman's purpose.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am sure unintentionally, the hon. Gentleman has misled the House on this matter. Under paragraph 9, it is entirely within the discretion of the executive to accept variations in routes. However, it is a fairly general power. Under paragraph 10, the discretion is drawn tightly. We on this side of the House are happy to leave the

power with the executive, but it should be allowed to exercise discretion in the way that it handles it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 67, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.
The purpose of the Amendment is to restore the permanency in respect of agreements which at the moment attaches to consents. I will not repeat what I have said already about the historical reasons why the consents were made permanent, but there was a legitimate act of policy which has been preserved and respected since the 1933 Act giving this degree of permanency to them. This legislation will mean that these permanent consents will have to be renegotiated with the executive and replaced by agreements. The moment agreements are negotiated, they are no longer permanent but remain in force for only a short period of time. One suspects that the executive will use its power to ensure that they are essentially of a short-term nature.
As these were permanent consents, when they are re-negotiated in the form of agreements they should have exactly the same value and permanence as the consents which they will replace.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: The short point is that the Government regard the provision of Schedule 4 as doing no more than preserving the rights of existing operators in respect of their services running at the vesting date. As a matter of principle, the executive should have control of the pattern of operation in its area and should, therefore, have it within its discretion to decide what new services are to be run by operators other than by itself or its subsidiaries.
The general proposition that the consent system with rights of appeal should continue to apply to new services proposed to be operated in Greater London is completely unacceptable. The consent procedure is to protect existing rights and, if agreement is entered into, the consent should lapse.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 5

CONTROL OF OFF-STREET PARKING

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 68, line 26, after 'hours', insert:
'and from which a copy of those draft regulations may be obtained on request'.
The effect of this Amendment is to require the G.L.C. to make copies of its draft regulations available on request and to state in its published notice of the draft regulations the place from where the draft may be obtained. The intention is that the draft regulations, as published, should be made available to anyone on request free.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 69, line 14, after '4', insert '(1)'.
The object of these Amendments, the last six of which are merely consequential on the first—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we take with this Amendment, Amendment Nos. 46, 47, 49 and 50?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If there is no objection, so be it.

Mr. Brown: The object of these Amendments, the last six of which are merely consequential on the first, is to ensure that the G.L.C. take appropriate steps to notify interested parties of the modifications which it makes to the draft regulations as a result of Ministerial directions under paragraph 4(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 5, before submitting the revised draft for the Minister's approval. It is to give reasonable opportunities for these people to make representations and it is to submit any representations received to the Minister.
The Amendments will ensure that the Minister is aware of the views of persons affected by the proposed Amendments to the draft regulations before he gives the council appoval to make them.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: We are happy to accept these Amendments. They arise out of points which we have put down

in the form of other Amendments in Committee. They help to modify the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 47, in page 69, line 20, leave out from 'of' to second 'in' in line 21 and insert 'such regulations'.
No. 48, in page 69, line 22, after 'that', insert:
'subject to sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph'.
No. 49, in page 69, line 34, at end insert:
(2) The Minister shall not consider any such revised draft as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) of this paragraph unless he is satisfied that the Council—

(a) have taken appropriate steps to inform any persons affected by the modifications incorporated in the revised draft of the nature of those modifications and have afforded those persons a reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect to the revised draft regulations; and
(b) have supplied the Minister with copies of any such representations made.

No. 50, in page 69, line 37, leave out 'any'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 51.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, page 69, line 38, leave out from 'proposal' to 'being' in line 39 and insert:
'with respect to any matter on in relation to any area which is not the subject of a direction under paragraph 3, or which is the subject of a consent under paragraph 4(1)(aa), of this Part of this Schedule'.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 69, line 40, leave out 'or, as the case may be, in that form'.

Mr. Speaker: It will help the Chair if it knows what Amendments are taken formally.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 53, in page 69, line 42, after 'direction', insert—
'with respect to any other matter or area'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 54.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. At the risk of infringing constitutional principles, we should not object to Amendments Nos. 54 to 57 being taken formally.

Mr. Speaker: That is joyful news for Mr. Speaker.
Amendment made: No. 54, in page 69, line 45, leave out 'such representations as aforesaid' and insert—
'representations to which paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule applies'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]
No. 55, in page 70, line 4, leave out from 'representations' to end of line 5 and insert—
'to which paragraph 2 of this Part of this Schedule applies'.
No. 56, in page 70, line, 9, leave out 'and'.
No. 57, in page 70, line 11, after 'question', insert—
'and to any such representations as are referred to in sub-paragraph (2) of the said paragraph 4'.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 70, line 13, at end insert—
7.—(1) A regulation to which this paragraph applies shall not be made except with the consent of the Minister and such consent shall be given by an order made by him which shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure.
(2) This paragraph applies to a regulation which would—

(a) designate as a controlled area, or include in a controlled area, the whole or any part of any aerodrome (as defined by the Airports Authority Act 1965) owned or managed by the British Airports Authority in exercise of its statutory functions; or
(b) include provisions affecting the operation of parking places within any such aerodrome.

The object of the Amendment is to ensure that where the G.L.C. proposes to bring one of the airports into the ambit of the car parking arrangements for London, that should be subject to Parliamentary procedure. We argued upstairs that it was a wrong principle for the airports to be brought under the G.L.C.'s control of car parking at all. It is said that the G.L.C. should have control of its own car parks because it is the highway authority for London. Under the Airports Authority Act the Airports Authority is the highway authority for its own airports, and it surely would be wrong in

principle for its car parking authority to be taken away from it and placed under the G.L.C. As I understand it, the Bill as drafted will have that effect.
The problems of the G.L.C. and the Airports Authority are different. The G.L.C. deals with commuters, shoppers, and visitors to London. The Airports Authority has a confined problem: persons going to London Airport to set down or pick up passengers—that is, short-time parking for under an hour—making arrangements for the parking of its own staff for eight hours each shift, providing parking for people going on domestic flights, which means up to 24 hours, and, finally, providing parking for those going on overseas flights, generally for more than 24 hours.
The problems of the Airports Authority and the G.L.C. are different, but the Minister says that we have to bring in the airports because they have a considerable effect on London traffic. But, as I showed upstairs, the effect on London traffic is much less than most people imagine. First, 50 per cent. of people who go to London Airport come from the home counties and from areas outside London. They come from Reading, Watford, and so on; they go straight to London Airport without going into London. Of the 50 per cent. going to London, 60 per cent. go to hotels by bus, which means that they do not provide a parking problem for a private car and nearly 30 per cent. go to hotels not in central London. Only 12 per cent. go by car to the central London area. Thus, London Airport does not provide a parking problem anything like that which is imagined. It provides only a very small proportion of the traffic that comes in and out of London.
We have here a constitutional problem. There is a conflict of two Acts of Parliament. The Airports Authority Act, 1965, gives the Airports Authority the powers to provide its own car parks. This Bill, if passed, will attempt to take away those powers, or to give the G.L.C. powers to take away the car parking powers of the Airports Authority. When there is a conflict between two Acts of Parliament, surely it must be right to bring that conflict back to the Floor of the House so that we can settle it. It is not a matter for the G.L.C. to settle with the London Airport or with the


British Airports Authority, nor for the G.L.C. to override the Airports Authority.
I should have thought that this was a grave constitutional problem, and that the proper thing to do was to bring the Act back to the House. The object of the Amendment is to do just that.

Mr. Bob Brown: The question of special treatment for British Airports Authority car parks has been argued at length by the B.A.A. with the Ministry, and the authority petitioned against the Bill for an exemption for its car parks. In Committee the Opposition moved an Amendment to exempt the B.A.A. car parks, and in the course of the debate they raised the question of the use of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedures) Act, 1945 to resolve the clash which they maintained would arise between the obligation placed on the B.A.A. by the Airports Authority Act, 1965 to provide
at its aerodromes such services and facilities as are in its opinion necessary or desirable
and the powers given to the G.L.C. to control parking at the Authority's aerodromes.
There are other areas in which this type of clash could occur. For instance, if the Authority wished to provide another access from Heathrow to the Bath Road it would have to apply to the local planning authority—Hillington Borough Council—which would have to consult the Minister of Transport because a trunk road was affected. The matter would then be determined on the basis of traffic flow and safety considerations.
If the authority wished to run a bus service between Heathrow and a Central London terminal, it would be subject to the normal road service licensing requirements. It would have to apply to the traffic commissioners, whose decisions whether or not to grant it a licence would be based on the requirements of the public interest, the extent to which the need of the proposed routes were already adequately served, the needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic, representations by other operators, and so forth.
As for the use of special parliamentary procedure, we do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate, any more than in the case of the hypothetical clash over access to the Bath Road or a B.A.A. bus service, already discussed. Ample

safeguards and checks have already been built into the licensing system, namely the Minister's call-in powers on the G.L.C. regulations, his power to order a public inquiry into them, the appeals machinery on licensing decisions—again with provision for the holding of a public inquiry, and the last resort of the compensation provisions.
These safeguards and checks provide adequate machinery for resolving any potential conflict between the airport authority's general obligations to run the airport and its facilities efficiently and the controls required under the current legislation. Special Parliamentary procedure is invoked where a person or an authority is much more directly affected—for example, as the Opposition mentioned in Committee—in the case of orders for the compulsory acquision of land for the construction of pipelines under the Pipelines Act, 1962 or harbour revision and other orders under the Harbours Act 1964.
The closest analogy for the use of special Parliamentary procedure to the present situation was the original position that existed under Sections 159 to 165 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, where a statutory undertaker wished to carry out certain developments and the sponsoring Minister, acting jointly with the Minister of Housing and Local Government, ruled against this for general planning reasons. The Act contained provision for the special Parliamentary procedure in such cases. The Amendment would appear to be based on the 1962 provisions. However, we understand that the procedure was never invoked in the cases in question under the 1962 Act, and provision for it was accordingly repealed by the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act.
The Minister believes that there is no case for providing in the statute for special provisions for B.A.A. car parks. The only B.A.A. airport in Greater London is Heathrow, but future B.A.A. developments might conceivably include a vertical take-off airport much nearer the centre of London, or a fairly central heliport, for example, which might attract considerable volumes of private car traffic, and it would be necessary for a parking control system to be able to cover them. While Heathrow is too far from the centre to be likely to be included in a controlled area, certainly for


some years yet, it would be wrong in principle to exclude parking in a place which is already a significant generator of traffic and is likely to be still more so in the years ahead.

9.45 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: We do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary's reply is adequate to meet the case. He cited certain analogies, none of which seemed entirely appropriate. First, he said that extra permissions might be needed if another access were required from Heathrow to the Bath Road. That would be a question of another access on to property outside the Heathrow area.
The second case that the hon. Gentleman used was that the Airports Authority would have to get special permission to run a bus service. That also is outside the area of Heathrow. What we are concerned with is an Airports Authority which, by Act of this House, has special duties over Heathrow. Under that Act, the authority is the highways authority for Heathrow and has special duties with regard to parking of vehicles. It even has special powers to make byelaws.
We laid a large number of duties and obligations on the Airports Authority, and gave it extensive powers to carry them out. It must be rare to have another authority as the highways authority on land within its own curtilage, but this was certainly given to the British Airports Authority at the time. Now, another Act will have absolute jurisdiction, without the Amendment, over car parking at Heathrow.
Without the Amendment—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—the G.L.C. can make an order on all car parking provisions at the airport, saying exactly when they are to be opened and closed, or that certain car parks should not be open until 10 o'clock in the morning, which, I understand from Press reports, the Minister intends to say to a number of other public car parking places, which seems crazy. It could say how many spaces should be available for long-term and how many for short-term parking—and all within the Heathrow area itself. It could specify the charges and ask to inspect accounts and take records from another public authority upon which we have laid special duties.
It seems to us a case of laying certain duties on a body and then laying conflicting duties, by way of another Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman made little reference to conflicting duties. He will remember our short debate in Committee about it. There are heavy duties on the Airports Authority under the Act which we have already passed. It would mean that, if the G.L.C. made some of these Orders, it would have to override some of the provisions of that Act, and there would be a clash.
The hon. Gentleman still has not said exactly what happens with regard to that clash. In our debate in Committee, the Minister said that if there were a clash he would have to tell the G.L.C., "This clashes with the duties of the Airports Authority; therefore, you cannot do it". Is he still of that opinion? It sounded from what the hon. Gentleman said today, and from his refusal to accept the Amendment, that the Minister would set himself up as the arbiter of which Act took priority over the other. He would then decide whether the G.L.C. should have power to control car parks and prices or whether the power should rest where it rests now, with the Airports Authority.
If the Amendment were accepted there would be no doubt about how such a problem would be resolved. Without the Amendment we cannot be certain. I trust, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted because if difficulty arose the matter would come before Parliament and we could decide the best way to resolve the problem. If the Amendment is not accepted I imagine that the Airports Authority will appeal on almost every occasion to the Minister. This must be an administrative appeal, with the result that second-class justice will be done.

Mr. Ogden: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Thatcher: It will be not an appeal in a court of law but an appeal to an administrator who is not necessarily skilled in the law.

Mr. Ogden: When referring to second-class justice, is the hon. Lady suggesting that an appeal to the Minister is less fair than an appeal to a court of law? Is she aware that on many occasions Measures have been passed giving the public a right of appeal to the Minister


—for example, in cases involving planning consent—and that no complaint has yet been made about that by her hon. Friends?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am anxious to limit appeals that are made to Ministers. After all, appeals made in this way are like hearings behind closed doors. The facts are not made known, and there are many occasions when, in planning matters particularly, the Minister overrides the reports of his inspectors.
In this instance we have laid certain duties on statutory bodies. If there appears to be a conflict, we want to know how that difference will be resolved except by a hearing behind locked doors in an adminstrative appeal to the Minister. This is not good enough. I hope that the Minister will agree to consider the matter further, and perhaps remedy the situation in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Marsh: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 71, line 9, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 60.

Mr. Marsh: That is satisfactory because these Amendments together meet the desires of the Opposition. It was suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the provision which enables local authorities to revoke a car park licence if development has not been started within two years of the date on which the licence was granted or completed within five years of that date was too short a period. These Amendments extend those two periods from two years to three years and from five years to seven years, respectively. We believe that this change goes as far as practicable to give developers reasonable security without giving rise to the possibility of large numbers of dormant licences accumulating, so making it impossible for the boroughs properly to assess the number of parking places to be allowed on new licences.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: My hon. Friends and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for again accepting an Opposition suggestion and for attending personally at this late hour to move the Amendment so graciously. Would he help further by seeing that local authorities

receive a general directive to the effect that before applying these provisions for the revocation of a licence, if circumstances outside the control of the owner of a licence have prevented him from implementing the licence, those circumstances shall be taken into account before revocation takes place?

Mr. Marsh: I will certainly look into that suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 60, in page 11, leave out 'five' and insert 'seven'.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Mrs. Thatcher: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I wish to move whatever I have to move in order to secure a Third Reading debate—

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Lady must restrain her enthusiasm for the moment.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not sure of the new procedure.

Mr. Speaker: I will help the hon. Lady, for the record. It is important. The putting down of a Motion by six hon. Members guarantees that the Third Reading will not be taken formally, but will be debated.

9.56 p.m.

Mrs. Thatcher: I shall know on another occasion, Mr. Speaker.
The powers in Clause 36 as it now is go much further than any which would have been granted by a Conservative Government. In our view, they are more far reaching and detailed than is necessary to control the numbers of long-term and short-term parking spaces for public use. They are restricted in their effect, and can inflict damage on the interests of those who have already provided public off-street parking spaces. I hope that the powers will be used very moderately, and we ourselves, when we are in a position to do so, will look again at those powers.
My second point relates to the extensive nature of the Bill. As the Minister has said on another occasion, this Measure combines the most powerful and comprehensive traffic powers into


one authority—more comprehensive than any others in the world. This means that once vesting day is passed there will no longer be any point for those within the G.L.C. area writing to hon. Members with their complaints. The proper procedure will be for them to write to their Greater London councillors with their complaints, and also to the chairman of the traffic committee of the G.L.C. I mention this fact because I hope that the councillors realise the tremendous liabilities they are taking on, and the tremendous postbag they will get if they are properly to carry out their duties. I hope that the Minister and the Greater London Council will insist that before fares are again put up, the London Transport service will greatly improve. At the moment, it leaves much to be desired.
Thirdly, it is part of the Bill that the operation shall be made viable before vesting day. In that connection, we have had a report from the Prices and Incomes Board, to which we have referred here. The point I wish to put to the Minister—who, I understand, has agreed to the fares increases—is: upon what date will those increases take effect?

9.58 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I have one or two comments to make from the point of view of the Barking Council and the South-Essex Traffic Advisory Committee, of which I am president. First, what is to be the rôle of traffic advisory committees in the new set-up? The Barking and South Essex Committee has a long history, it has been copied in many parts of Greater London, and it has done very useful service. On it we have representatives of the underground railways, buses, British Railways, and the various local councils in the area, including those of Barking and Havering.
Representatives of these various organisations meet from time to time and discuss the traffic needs of the area. They have over the last 30 years done very useful work in getting bus services revised so as to dovetail with the train services, and so on. They have criticised services, and have persuaded London Transport to take censuses in order to have the facts before it when discussing traffic grievances and problems. I hope that such bodies will continue because I am certain

that they still have useful work to do. There still remains the question of ensuring that London Transport under the G.L.C. works in with British Rail services in the area. Secondly, there is a question which causes a good deal of disquiet locally.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Transport (London) (recommitted) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Marsh.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Parker: There is a great deal of feeling locally about the ending of the Transport Tribunal and the abolition of its control over passenger fares in the London area.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is an experienced Parliamentarian. Does this Bill end the Transport Tribunal? If not, he cannot talk about that.

Mr. Parker: It does, Mr. Speaker. Under the Tribunal's control over passenger fares, 23 objections have been made locally in the last 30 years. Sometimes they have succeeded, sometimes they have been turned down, sometimes they have succeeded in part, but certainly the discussions which have taken place have been useful for the people in the area. Many people who use the bus services in the Greater London area come from outside that area. Many commuters who use the London services will have corn plaints to make about increases in fares. What opportunity will they have to make representations and to ensure that their grievances are attended to?
There is a problem in my area where the District Railway has a line from Upminster to Bow Road. It is owned by British Railways but one half is operated by London Transport. After considerable argument over the years, London fares have been applied to that line. British Railways want now to operate its fares on the line, which would mean a considerable increase. So far such an increase has been turned down by the Tribunal. What will be the position in future? Who will decide what rate of fares there is to be on that important suburban line? These are some of the


problems which people in my constituency would like to have answered.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: We have been critical of this Bill. Its powers are very wide—perhaps too wide in some instances, particularly in Clause 36.
It will be a great experiment to see how the G.L.C. and London Transport get on in future. One thing we must avoid—I say this as a London Member—is London Transport falling back on the ratepayers as British Railways for the past 20 years have fallen back on the taxpayers. Although democracy objects to rises in fares, London Transport and the G.L.C. must be given a chance to operate this system as a commercial organisation. They must not be held back by the Prices and Incomes Board in the way that the Transport Tribunal held back the London Transport Executive two years ago, preventing it increasing fares with the result that last year it lost £10 million.
Clause 36 is too restrictive on car-parking operators. We should be thankful for the energy and enterprise of private operators in London in the last year or two. Unless the powers provided are sensibly handled by the G.L.C. there may be very draconian decisions which could cause a great deal of concern in this city.
The Minister tells us that the whole object of giving the G.L.C. these very extensive powers is to channel the traffic through London in a better fashion than at present. But he must face what the G.L.C. has said, that one of the results of the Draconian powers will be a reduction of the number of commuters and shoppers visiting London by car. There is no doubt that that will result from the passing of the Bill.
I hope that London Transport will be encouraged to pursue a progressive policy. It has been lacking in imagination. There is much criticism of it in my constituency, and I have no doubt that other London Members will also have heard criticism.
I hope that the operation of the one-man operated buses will be extended, and that that will give London Transport a chance to prevent some of the fraud now going on. If I travel from Parliament

Square to Victoria in the rush hour I could easily not pay my fare, because the conductor does not have time to go round to collect all the fares. I am certain that about 25 per cent. of the passengers on buses do not pay their fares for short distances in the rush hours. Turnstiles will prevent that, and one-man operation means that turnstiles will be introduced.
I look forward to the London Transport Executive having a more progressive and imaginative future, guided, I hope, by a wise Greater London Council.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: As several hon. Members opposite have said, the Bill creates a very comprehensive transport authority for central London, and for that very reason I am prepared to support the Bill's basic proposals.
It has been proved abroad in many instances that the only way to prevent the decline in passenger-mileage travel on public passenger transport services is to combine and co-ordinate as many such services as possible. So as to be able to gauge the kind of investment decisions that I believe the Greater London Council and London Transport Executive will have to face, this body will need even more external comparisons with other in-of roads and investment in roads.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot talk about the powers which are not in the Bill. On Third Reading, we discuss what is in the Bill.

Mr. Huckfield: I recognise that, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance.
My point is that to give the Greater London Council the full comprehension of the kind of investment decisions it will need to make under the Bill I believe that more external comparisons with other investments would be needed.
Many of the difficulties in the Bill have been compounded by the dogmatic insistence of the representatives of the Tory Party in County Hall that the transport organisation must make a £2 million surplus even before it starts. This is the kind of thing that has necessitated the fares increases that we have discussed. For the representatives of the Conservative Party in County Hall to


put such a burden on such an authority to start off with is bad. The authority will start off with a heavy burden because of the obligations the party opposite has already put on it.
I have been amazed by some of the things hon. Members opposite have said tonight. It appears that they do not trust their colleagues in County Hall; they want the Government to put obligations on them, which is a rather unusual situation.
I have been amazed by the hopping about of hon. Members and the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) as to who will foot the bill for certain things mentioned in the Bill. It seems that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) does not want it to go on the London ratepayers. The hon. Lady the Member for Finchley and her other hon. Friends do not want it to go on the taxpayer, yet at the same time they do not wish any of the services to be reduced. For the Opposition to come forward with all their wonderful solutions to make a better transport system and make the whole thing pay, without having anybody foot the bill, is not to put forward the sort of logical and consistent argument which I expected to hear when I came to the House.
We have been right to concentrate on the powers given to the Greater London Council under Clause 36. A good deal of attention has been directed to the more rigid control over the provision of car parking facilities. I spoke earlier this evening about the editorial in the Daily Sketch of Wednesday, 7th May—it is entitled to its opinions—and it has been said that a vast new rigid bureaucracy will be created and will sweep away one more of our freedoms. I do not accept that.
I am not prepared to stand by and see, and I am sure that no hon. Member ought to do so, either, the private operator of a car park in London make money out of the public who will have to park their cars there. In giving a car park operator a licence in Central London, one presents him with a near-monopoly. Already, one company, apparently the friend of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke)—I refer to National Car Parks—has a near-monopoly

of car parking facilities in Central London. At Heathrow, one finds National Car Parks. At Euston and many other big car park centres one finds the same company.
I am concerned lest we have a situation in which one large company, already so big that many local authorities have no other to turn to, will not be controlled in the way I should like to see, and I am sure that Clause 36 will be of help in controlling that company.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of car parking places provided by National Car Parks and the number of car parking places available in London?

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for that intervention because it enables me to make the point even clearer. The hon. Gentleman knows that that company, to which I have made several references today and several references in Committee, has a happy knack of pouncing on derelict pieces of land—any piece of land which nobody manages to got hold of—in key sites, knowing that it will have a near-monopoly of the provision of car parking places in the area. What is essential in Central London is that the short-term parker shall be able to park near to the centres I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman knows that that company has a happy knack of comandeering sites near the places where people have to park.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—

Mr. Huckfield: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. I have been kind to him. I only wish that he would extend the same courtesy to me sometimes.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I have never refused to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Will he make his allegations about National Car Parks outside the Chamber, where he can be challenged by the people concerned?

Mr. Huckfield: The central point I have made both in this speech and in other speeches on the Bill is that I prefer, and I know that many of my hon. Friends prefer car parking places in near-monopoly sites to be owned, controlled and operated entirely by the local authority. I am not prepared to see a


near-monopoly which the community itself has created being used for exploitation and for private profit. The Opposition have put forward their argument about inspection of the profit and loss accounts of these companies, and the House well understands the point which they make because they have made it so often.
This is a good Bill. It does not go quite so far as I should like with reference to new road investment, but it goes as far as we ought to go to secure adequate car parking control in Central London. I do not want to see the kind of vast new bureaucracy which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) mentioned. I do not believe that that will happen. But I am not prepared to see near-monopoly situations which the community has created used for private gain. This is why we must have the more extensive powers in the Bill which will be given to the G.L.C. to inspect car parking provision.
I am glad that as a result of the Bill local people will have control of local transport. I have always said that if we are to have a flourishing, vigorous, dynamic public transport system and if our cities are not to come to a complete traffic halt, we must confront local people with local transport decisions. The Bill goes a long way towards doing that. For this reason, I wholeheartedly endorse its Third Reading.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Berry: As a London Member who has been in transport since I first became a Member, I should like to comment on this important Bill. We have had important debates in Committee and, as a result, some important improvements have been made to the Bill, many of which the Government have introduced tonight. Nevertheless, I am not happy about some parts of it.
Clause 6 is still far too reminiscent of last year's Transport Act. It gives unnecessary powers to the G.L.C. which I am sure it does not want. Clause 36 does not tackle the parking problem properly. Many examples have been given. I think particularly of Heathrow Airport. I am disappointed and surprised that the Government have not seen fit to accept any of our Amendments on this matter. The

fact that the odd combination of the G.L.C. and the Minister wants the Bill gives us more reason to look at it carefully.
There is a vital need to tackle one of London's greatest problems—transport. Many people will be affected by the Bill, whether they live in London or live outside and come to work in the centre or merely come here from time to time on holiday, business or even to visit their Member of Parliament.
I wish the Bill well. I hope that there will be close consultations with the London boroughs and with those who live in them before major changes in bus services are made. I am sure that the service will be good. It will not be the fault of those who work the services if it is not. I express my good wishes to all those who will administer the Bill in the interests of the public and the 60,000 employees of the executive.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Fletcher: Earlier today I tried to keep hon. Members from their Whitsun holiday. I have no intention of keeping them out of their beds now.
I am in no transports of delight about the Bill since both my efforts to amend it in Committee were conspicuously unsuccessful. To that extent, it does not come near enough to what I desire and what other hon. Members on this side of the House desire. However, I wish to make one narrow specific point about Clause 16 before we speed the Bill on its way.
One of the effects of this Clause will be to remove from the control of the new executive the Green Line coaches which cross the central London area. The effect on the organisation of transport does not concern me because I cannot speak with any degree of authority on it. I speak with a diminished degree of authority on another effect, namely, the effect on future industrial negotiations. I do not wish to be too precise, but the Minister still has certain power even if the Bill becomes an Act in its present form.
I am anxious that when the changeover takes place and the Green Line services are transferred to the National Bus Company, the lessons which should have been


learned from the 1958 bus strike, when there was a dislocation between country and central London rates of pay, will be borne in mind by all those concerned and that in any negotiating machinery it will be remembered that hitherto the Green Line busmen have negotiated direct with the London Transport Board whereas other negotiating machinery exists for the country services. There is, as my right hon. Friend knows, considerable anxiety among trade union circles about this, and I hope, before I give my modified welcome to the Third Reading, that he will set some of those fears at rest.

Captain W. Elliot: On the whole, both sides of the House accept the Bill and wish it well. It is interesting that hon. Members opposite should welcome a denationalisation Measure. That is a useful precedent and we shall expect their support when we take similar action in due course.
I have some reservations about the Bill. We have had a good deal of discussion about the commercial nature of the London Transport Executive and on why it should receive similar treatment to that of private enterprise. But we should be careful not to carry the comparison too far, though the executive will be in competition with private enterprise. In the first place, the executive is to have great monopoly powers and great financial resources, not necessarily drawn from its business activities but possibly from the ratepayers. I hope that we shall not make the same mistake of handing out subsidies and not knowing exactly where they are going so that we are unable to identify services which are inefficient.
Secondly, there may be political motivation. We have heard tonight that the Government may interfere in possible fare changes and we know that fare changes have political implications. All of this makes the executive a very different concern from a commercial undertaking. Clause 1 gives the essence of the Bill when it refers to the
… provision of integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities …
Transport facilities include roads and the Bill gives the G.L.C. complete control over the roads in the Greater London area and that means complete control over the motor car.
Private cars are virtually the only competition which this great transport organisation in the Greater London area will have and I view that control with some concern. I believe that it will have to be watched.
On Friday, the Financial Times said, in an article headed, "London Transport on a profit basis":
If the G.L.C. is to have any real hope of keeping London Transport permanently in the black it will have to introduce far tougher measures of restraint on private car traffic, particularly commuters …
I believe that many other people have that in their minds. In addition, to removing competition, these great bureaucracies often seem to think that the only way to get into the black is to put up prices. But there are other ways. Let us take, for example, the interchange at Victoria, where hundreds of people stand in the open, getting soaked through or frozen stiff, while waiting for buses after getting off trains. No wonder they change to motor cars.
No doubt control is necessary, and I agree that it is, but the approach should be to make the public services so efficient that people will turn to them voluntarily and leave their cars at home. It would be intolerable if the private car user were driven off the roads in London in order to bolster up an inefficient public transport system. I wish this future authority well, but I intend to watch it closely.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Ogden: I was tempted into this debate by a remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). He said that hon. Members on this side were supporting a Measure of denationalisation. He is, of course, conversant with Clause Four of the Labour Party constitution, which refers to the public ownership and control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. This Bill represents public ownership of the means of distribution and the Opposition are supporting it.
Coming from a constituency outside London, perhaps I can point out that the issue is not that we are giving control of London transport simply to the executive or to the G.L.C. but to Londoners, and this may well be an important precedent for other parts of the country.

Mr. Marsh: The hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) said that the powers in the Bill go much further than would have been agreed by the Conservative Party had they been in office. They have been agreed with the biggest Conservative authority in the country—

Mrs. Thatcher: Not with me.

Mr. Marsh: As the hon. Lady says, not with her. It presumably flows from what she says that if ever the Conservative Party were in office they would repeal the Bill, which would make the hon. Lady very unpopular across the river.
The hon. Lady asked the date of the London fares increase. It is too early to say yet; it will probably be some time in September, although the new fare structure has to be worked out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) asked about local traffic advisory committees. This is a very complicated issue and, if he will forgive me, I will write to him. On his other point about the position of local authorities outside the Greater London area, Clause 11 gives special rights of consultation on London Transport rail and bus services in the areas, and there will, therefore, be provision, as he wishes, for consultation and the expression of views.
The abolition of the powers of the Transport Tribunal in London is logical in that the matters it dealt with will now be dealt with by the G.L.C. Far from having some other advisory body, for the first time these issues will be dealt with by a body which is elected by the people of London. The basic idea behind the whole proposition is that Londoners will be able to determine the sort of services they want, the price they are prepared to pay for them and the way in which they wish to pay that price.
Reference has been made to the evil possibilities of subsidising urban services. I have said before, and will say again, that these services cannot be run like a greengrocer's shop. If hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite will do the overall arithmetic, they will find that the economic return of a subsidised public transport service is frequently higher than

the amount of subsidy required to provide it, but I will deal with this in a moment.
I do not wish to take up hon. Members' time by rehearsing in detail everything that the Bill does, and all the points that we have discussed on the Floor of the House and in Committee. There has been an acceptance on both sides of the House of the basic aim which we are pursuing, which is to give the G.L.C. as wide and as effective powers as possible in transportation generally.
We now have in the Bill a unique document of great importance, which provides new and effective control of all aspects of transport within the Greater London area. The Greater London Council will have not only the control but also the responsibilities. The G.L.C. will be able to determine the way in which London Transport Executive is to operate its services, and the level of the provision it is to make to meet the needs of Greater London. Equally, it will have to take financial responsibility for its own decisions, and this in my view is a right and proper position.
But this is only part of the Bill's object. We have had a lengthy discussion on Clause 36 and Schedule 5, dealing with the control of public off-street parking. This issue is important, but it is only a part of the wider powers which the Bill gives to the G.L.C. in highways and traffic generally.
The G.L.C. will now be able to take into account all the factors involved in determining a transport policy for London and making London as convenient and efficient a place to live in as it possibly can.
My hon. Friend raised the matter of the Green Line buses. This is a point which has concerned him, since he has raised it on other occasions, and I know that it concerns some of the organisations involved. None the less, in our view it is the only way of organising this particular sector of London transport.
The same sort of questions have been raised about manufacturing powers. It seems to me to be absurd for a public authority to be debarred from using its capacity to the fullest extent.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the financial position of the executive, about the capital write-off


provided by the Bill and about the fares increase which has been approved by the Prices and Incomes Board.
The Government agreed to the demand of the Greater London Council that the London transport undertakings should be viable on hand-over to them. The action taken by the Government in the Bill and elsewhere meets this requirement of the council.
The council could, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested, have entered into a commitment to use its powers of subsidy to the executive under the Bill so as to obviate or reduce the need for fare increases. It has rejected this course and is entitled to do so, since it is its responsibility. In the circumstances, the Government have felt obliged to take action, to which I have referred. Once the undertaking is handed over to the G.L.C. it will have the full financial responsibility for its activities. It is then for the council to determine the policies which the executive should follow and to determine them in the light of the financial obligations placed on both the executive and the council under the Bill.
Many doubts and fears have been expressed. They always are expressed in relation to something that is very new and very large. There have been the fears expressed by some of the car parking operators, whom I do not have the crusading desire to attack as has my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr.

Leslie Huckfield). They undoubtedly have fears. But these fears will be shown to be without foundation particularly in light of the new Amendments which we have included this afternoon.
I end by saying that in the Government's view this is a good and useful Bill and one that will make a very substantial contribution to the general well being of our capital city. It has been possible because the G.L.C. was able to participate in an imaginative and risky step in many ways. We have conducted our discussions with the G.L.C. on a fair basis, and I would like to pay tribute to the co-operation which we have had from the council. It is on the basis of mutual co-operation, in a matter which is new, large and important, with the assistance which we have had from the council, from the London Transport Board, and in their various ways, devious though they may have been, at times with the support which we have had from the Opposition.
Although they are not always quick to acknowledge virtue when they see it, they usually finish up by supporting the policies of the Government, which they recognise, in their heart of hearts, are the only possible means of making a contribution to society.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — BENZENE (DUTY)

10.33 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 3) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 573), dated 21st April, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.
The Order I am asking the House to approve restored as from 1st May an import duty which would otherwise have remained suspended until the end of this year. This is the 25 per cent. ad valorem duty on a chemical known as 1, 4-Di-(2- Hydroxyethoxy) benzene.
This chemical is used to make synthetic rubbers for seals and gaskets, and as an intermediate in the production of certain fibres. Along with certain other items, it was exempted from import duty on 6th March by the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 1) Order, 1969 (S.I. 1969 No. 232).
This particular exemption on 6th March was the result of a mistake. The present Order corrects that mistake.
Our general policy is to suspend the duty on a chemical subject to a duty of 25 per cent. or more when application is made and supplies are not available from United Kingdom or Commonwealth sources in quantities substantial in relation to demand. We suspended this duty because we were unaware at the time of any adequate United Kingdom or Commonwealth production.
Before recommending the suspension, we published the application and made our usual inquiries. This procedure has proved generally successful over a long period. But in this case we have become aware that there is adequate production in this country only after the No. 1 Order was made.
Our failure to appreciate this earlier stemmed from two causes. As a result of a most unusual breakdown in the normal channel of commercial consultations, we did not receive in time an objection made by a United Kingdom manufacturer. Even so, we should probably have discovered the position had we in the Board of Trade made further inquiries quickly enough following a late telephone approach from the applicant which indicated that a United Kingdom

manufacturer might possibly be able to supply after all.
I regret this rare breakdown in our normal consultation procedures and the need to bother the House on this occasion. But there is adequate United Kingdom production, and the U.K. producer is facing overseas competition in supplying a number of users in this country. In the circumstances, I am sure that it is right to ask the House to approve this Order to restore the duty.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The House will be glad to learn that I do not propose to make a long speech about this Order. I have no doubt that the Minister of State will also be glad to know that we have no objection to it.
In thanking him for the frank way in which he put the Order before us and recognising that genuine errors have been at work in this instance, as a result of which the product in question was included in a list exempting it from import duty, in spite of the fact that the firm in question in this country had taken steps to secure its exclusion, I would only add that, in my considerable experience of the operation of this legislation, this is the first time that there has been a breakdown in the communications between the relevant trade association and the Board of Trade. It is so rare as to be almost unique. Hundreds, possibly thousands, of products are dealt with annually by the relevant section in the Board of Trade, and it is remarkable, not that an error should have occurred, but that it should occur so rarely.
This is an opportunity whereby we in this House can pay a tribute to the small band of civil servants who exercise a little noticed but vitally important function in clearing these long lists of chemicals either for exemption from import duty or for the imposition of a temporary import duty. It is a tedious task which goes on week in, week out, and it is performed with notable accuracy. The fact that we have a case which has gone wrong should not detract from the value which we in this House must place upon their services, and I hope that the Minister will feel it right to bring this tribute to the notice of those concerned.

10.39 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: Can the Minister say where the imports are coming from? Are they from foreign or Commonwealth countries? If they are from Commonwealth countries, will they, under this Order, be subject to duty, or will they get Commonwealth preference?

Mr. William Rodgers: I shall have to confirm this to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that they would be entitled to Commonwealth preference. However, I am not sure from which source this is coming. I will find out, and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may assist by putting a question to the Minister of State. Is is not a fact that the imports in question were coming from Germany? If so, my hon. Friend's fear may be regarded as groundless.

Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's guidance. I am sure that he is right, but I will make doubly sure.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (Temporary Exemptions) (No. 3) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 573), dated 21st April 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I beg to move,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
These draft regulations amend the Police Pensions Regulations, 1966. They are in three parts, and I should like to give the House a brief explanation of the changes.
Part I provides for the regulations to come into operation on 1st June this year and for the dates from which Parts II and III take effect.
Part II of the regulations is consequential on the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1969, and serves to increase the pensions of police widows and the allowances payable to the children of deceased

police officers. The pensions of retired police officers have been increased directly under the 1969 Act. For technical drafting reasons, this is the usual way of applying Pensions (Increase) Measures to the police service.
There are two classes of police widows' pension. One is related to the late husband's pay and length of service. The other is a flat-rate amount depending upon his rank. The regulations now before the House follow the precedent of earlier Pensions (Increase) Measures by providing, in the former case, that the awards shall be treated as though they had been specified in Schedule 1 to the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1969, and, in the latter case, by specifically substituting new rates.
The cases related to pay and service are covered by draft Regulation 6 and the flat-rate cases by draft Regulations 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11. The flat-rate amounts now proposed are the existing amounts increased by 18 per cent., which is the highest percentage increase for which the Act provides.
Draft Regulation 5, which relates to the additional increase in a pension at age 70 provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, and to the increases payable on it under the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1965 and 1969, and draft Regulation 7, which relates to the duration of an increase in a child's allowance, are consequential on the main provisions.
Draft Regulation 2(a) provides that Parts II of the regulations shall have effect from 1st April, 1969, that being the date from which the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1969, took effect. I am sure that the House will agree that these amendments are all very desirable.
Part III of the draft regulations contains two separate amendments. The first arises out of a reorganisation of the higher ranks in the Metropolitan Police, one consequence of which is the introduction of the rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner. The pension conditions appropriate to this new rank are to be the same as those for the existing rank of Commander. Draft Regulations 12 and 13 make the necessary provisions for ages of retirement, that is, a normal requirement to serve until age 60 under Regulation 12, but with provision for compulsory retirement on


account of age at 57 contained in Regulation 13.
The second amendment, contained in draft Regulation 14, relates to the position of those children of deceased police officers who do not receive National Insurance benefits because their fathers were unable to complete the necessary contributions to the scheme. Since 5th July, 1948—the date on which the National Insurance scheme came into operation—the Police Pensions Regulations have given police authorities discretion to increase the police allowances of these children up to amounts which are related to the National Insurance for which they do not qualify. When the amounts of these National Insurance benefits are changed, it is the practice to make corresponding changes in the amounts which can be paid by police authorities.
Hon. Members will be aware that from 8th October last National Insurance benefits for children became payable at different rates in accordance with the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act of last year. The amendment in draft Regulation 14 therefore makes certain related adjustments as appropriate in the amounts payable under the Police Pensions scheme, but no adjustments are made which would reduce the amounts of payments already being made for children.
Finally, the House should know that the Police Council for Great Britain has been consulted on all the amendments contained in these regulations and is in agreement with the proposal that they should be made.

10.46 p.m.

Sir David Renton: The widows and children of police officers are, like the officers themselves, deserving people, and it should always be the concern of this House to ensure that they are properly provided for. Therefore, we support these regulations, and the improvements in the pensions' position and the children's allowances for which the regulations provide. It would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman could give us some idea of the number of police widows that there are now so that we can get some measure of the size of this problem.
As to the form and content of the regulations, and bearing in mind that

these are amending regulations, I prefer the method used for achieving the amendments of the principal regulations to that which has generally been followed in the past. It is better, as these regulations do, completely to replace a previous regulation than to attempt to amend it piecemeal and in detail and add a great many cross-references. It is far more satisfactory to have it done in this form and content, and makes less urgent what used to become too rapidly urgent, a need for consolidation.
There are two questions that I wish to ask on the substance of the matter. First, the hon. Gentleman has explained that the flat rates for widows depend in each case on the rank of the husband, and the hon. Gentleman has told us that the increases in the flat rates come into effect when the widows reach the age of 70. Why has the age of 70 been chosen? Bearing in mind the contents of the National Insurance scheme and of other pension schemes, it seems to me that a lower age, perhaps 65, or even 60, might have been more appropriate than 70. That is a matter which should engage our attention, and I think that we should ask for an explanation of how 70 comes to be the age.
Second, do these widows' pensions and children's allowances vary in amount—as undoubtedly the fire service widows' pensions and children's allowances vary—according to the way in which a police officer meets his death? It seems to me that we should try to avoid artificial distinctions. If an officer meets his death in the course of duty there should be no artificial distinction—as in the case of the fire regulations—as to what the officer's attitude towards the risk of death was at the time he died. I hope that the Minister will explain the position with regard to any variation effected by the way in which a police officer meets his death, and perhaps give us some hope for a rationalisation of the position in the future.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: With your permission, and that of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). On the question of the number of police


widows, I regret that I have not that information available at the moment, but I shall write to the right hon. and learned Member as soon as I have obtained it.
Secondly, on the question whether or not it would be appropriate to proceed by way of fresh regulations, this has not been the practice in relation to the police pensions regulations; this is the fourth set of regulations since the first set was made under the principal regulations in 1966. In two or three years' time it may be appropriate to consolidate, but I do not think that it will be necessary to do so sooner than that.
Thirdly, I have been asked why it is that the age of 70 is set out as the point where there is augmentation of the flat rate pension. All I can say is that this was decided by Parliament in Section 2 of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, and that as far as I am aware there is full agreement on this point on the part of the Police Council. However, I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said on this matter.
The last question was whether the regulations vary as to amount, dependent upon the circumstances in which the police officer met his death. The police pensions regulations provide that where an officer's death results from an attack or from injuries received in the course of duty performed for the purpose of effecting an arrest of preventing an escape from legal custody the widow is entitled to a pension, inclusive of National Insurance benefit, equal to at least half her late husband's average pensionable pay plus a gratuity that amounts, in practice, to approximately £2,600.
I would not go so far as to say that this scheme is completely free from anomalies. I can tell the House that proposals to extend the scope of such awards will be examined in consultation with the Police Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DISEASES

10.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Services (Mr. Norman Pentland): I beg to move
That the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.
The Scheme will help a small number of men suffering from a rare disease which has now been found to be a hazard of their particular employment.
I should explain that the draft Scheme is made under the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act, 1967, an Act consolidating earlier legislation and providing for special schemes under which allowances are payable out of the Industrial Injuries Fund for disablement or death resulting from certain industrial diseases in circumstances which are not covered either by the Industrial Injuries Scheme, which began in July 1948, or by the Workmen's Compensation Acts which it then replaced.
Pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and a number of malignant or potentially malignant diseases develop so slowly that in many cases where a man left the causative employment before July 1948 and so is not covered by the Industrial Injuries Scheme they have become apparent too late for workmen's compensation to be claimed within the time limits of the old Acts. The occupational origins of some of these diseases have only been established in recent years and for these cover was not provided by the old Workmen's Compensation Acts.
The Scheme which gives effect to this provision for allowances is the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme, 1966. The draft Scheme now before the House extends Schedule 1 of the principal Scheme, which lists the malignant or potentially malignant diseases covered, to include adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity or associated air sinuses for any one attending for work in or about a building where wooden furniture is manufactured.
The disease is also being prescribed under the Industrial Injuries Act for those employed in the industry after 1948. This follows the acceptance by


my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a recommendation by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council which has been studying the results of independent research into the incidence of the disease and its link with the wooden furniture industry.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: The House has always discussed the problems of those suffering from pneumoconiosis, byssinosis and other industrial respiratory diseases with particular sympathy, partly because of their nature; partly because of their particular association in our minds with the mining community, to which, over the years, this country has owed so much; and partly because of the devoted work in earlier years of hon. Members, some of whom are still with us, representing mining constituencies, many of whom have spoken on this subject with such authority and feeling.
The Under-Secretary of State has explained these proposals, and they have been considered by the Special Orders Committee of the House of Lords, which reported:
That the draft Scheme does not raise important questions of policy or principle;
That it is founded on the precedent of previous schemes made under the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Act, 1967;
That, in the opinion of the Committee, the Draft Scheme can be passed by the House without special attention.
There are, however, three points on which I should like clarification.
First, am I right in thinking that benefit under this Scheme is strictly confined to those suffering from adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity or associated air sinuses if, and only if, those affected have been in an occupation involving attendance for work in or about a building where wooden furniture is manufactured? If so, are we to take it that the medical advice given to the Minister is that this disease can be contracted only in this way? Are his advisers certain that no other form of industrial activity can produce this hazard to health? To a layman such as myself this seems surprising. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give that unequivocal assurance, for otherwise the occupation qualification in the Instrument would seem to have been narrowly drawn.
Secondly, what is the estimated cost to the Fund of this extension? Thirdly, would the hon. Gentleman explain the procedure for obtaining death benefit under the Scheme for the widow of somebody who has died from adenocarcinoma? My experience of constituency cases under this range of benefits is that the procedures for scrutinising applications for benefit are far more stringent in the case of death than of disability.
For example, with pneumoconiosis—and, I assume, adenocarcinoma cases will, administratively, be similarly treated—the sufferer is asked to produce evidence to satisfy the insurance officer that there is reasonable cause for suspecting that he is suffering from pneumoconiosis; and normally this evidence consists of a certificate from a doctor, a hospital or a chest clinic. I understand that, normally, this is sufficient and benefit is paid without the sufferer being required, except in cases of doubt, to go before a special medical tribunal.
But when death occurs it is sometimes difficult for dependants to qualify for benefit unless they have insisted on an immediate post-mortem to establish that death was caused by the prescribed disease. Many dependants may not know of this provision. Indeed, does every doctor know of it?

Mr. Pentland: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is now dealing with matters affecting the statutory authorities, which are entirely outside the terms of the Scheme before the House. We are merely discussing an additional disease which will come within terms of prescribed diseases.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am obliged to the Minister for raising that point of order. The hon. Gentleman was tending to go rather wide of the Instrument before the House, which is designed to add one additional disease to the prescribed list. The matter cannot be debated too widely.

Mr. Tapsell: I will, of course, abide by your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, since the Instrument adds a new respiratory industrial disease—in this case adenocarcinoma—to a group of existing diseases, including pneumoconiosis and byssinosis, I thought that


it would be in order for me to discuss the way in which the regulations governing the existing illnesses will apply to this new illness if it is added to this special group. May I continue to comment on this narrow point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that we must all abide by the rules of order. This is a quite narrow Instrument and the hon. Gentleman must restrict his remarks to the aspect mentioned in it: the additional disease to which it refers.

Mr. Tapsell: It is difficult, while keeping within those rules of order, to make constructive comments on the application of the Instrument on one's constituents and on the way in which it will affect them. I hope that the powers concerned will, in their wisdom, consider the more humane administrative handling of applications for death benefit.
Subject to the three points I have raised—first, the narrowness of the occupations definition; secondly, the cost to the Fund; and, thirdly, the procedure for claiming death benefit—I welcome, on behalf of the Opposition, this extension of the Industrial Injuries Act.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Brown: I, too, wish to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and his Department for bringing forward this extension. I find no difficulty in adding constructive comment, because members of my union the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives, have been subject to this disease for a long time and they are much gratified that the Government have had the foresight to bring forward this extension at such an early date. The study which brought this disease to the forefront of the furniture industry was only undertaken and reported on on 8th June, 1968, and it does the Government extreme credit that they have acted so expeditiously to ensure that people employed in the furniture industry will now be covered under the Industrial Injuries Act.
It has been extremely difficult to prove cases, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows. To be able to urge a Department to add something to a Schedule one has almost to turn oneself on one's head, because no matter what

one brings along it is not sufficient to prove the point or one finds it has not been proved to be only within that industry, and I became a little worried when the hon. Gentleman opposite, the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tap-sell) got onto this point. I have had many discussions with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has had to put up with so much from me as a result of what he has said about whether it affected only this industry, that I am grateful for his courtesy towards me.
This is one more step to adding more justice for those working in the industry where they are at risk, where they contract nasal cancer. Members of my union will feel that the Government are seized of this. I pay tribute to the Oxford Study Group under Dr. Acheson and his colleagues who highlighted what the Government are now putting right.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. R. B. Cant: I, too, would like to congratulate the Government on this extension of the list of industrial diseases. This is one of the small things the Government have done which will make a contribution to human welfare but will not strike the headlines as will some of the other things they have done in the recent past. I rise to repair an omission by the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) in relating the problem to pneumoconiosis to mining and to remind the House that in the constituency I have the honour to represent this terrible scourge—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is going out of the bounds of order. Perhaps he wanted to relate his remarks to the Order.

Mr. Cant: rose—

Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of order. I have been here a long time waiting for this to come on. The Explanatory Memoranda which were circulated through the Vote Office are utterly impossible for anyone to understand and questions must be put to my hon. Friend in our efforts to understand what on earth he is talking about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Questions on the Orders would be quite in order if the hon. Member were to catch my eye.

Mr. Cant: I am sorry that my route to the discussion of a narrow point was rather devious. Pneumoconiosis is a terrible scourge not only to the mining industry but to the potters, and I pay tribute to my predecessor for his work on this. My final point relates to—

Mr. Tapsell: Since the hon. Member slightly chided me on this, I would point out that I said that pneumoconiosis was particularly associated with the mining industry. We all know that it affects other industries as well.

Mr. Cant: Indeed it does. Having been slightly churlish, I wish now to support the hon. Member for Horncastle in asking whether or not the addition of adenocarcinoma would be applicable to the pottery industry if it is relevant.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Pentland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) for what he said, because I have known of his interest in this disease for a number of years and I knew that we would be delighted that it is to be prescribed under the Act.
On the point about which some of my hon. Friends appear apprehensive, I repeat what I said in my speech. This draft Scheme now before the House extends Schedule 1 of the principal Scheme, which lists the malignant or potentially malignant diseases covered to include ardenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity or associated air sinuses for anyone attending for work in or about a building where wooden furniture is manufactured. It is an addition to the diseases we had prescribed.
The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) asked for information about benefits. Benefits available for sufferers from this disease will be 55s. a week for partially disabled and £7 12s. a week for totally disabled, who may qualify for additional allowances. For the dependants of a man who dies as a result of this disease, there will be a death benefit up to £300 and benefits under the main National Insurance Scheme will continue to be available in addition.

Mr. Tapsell: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an estimate of the total annual cost of this extension?

Mr. Pentland: I could not do that without notice, but it will be small in the beginning because the numbers involved will be small. I take note of what the hon. Member has said and I will see that he gets the information in regard to the cost.

Mr. Tapsell: I do not wish to be discourteous nor to score party political points, because we are all in support of this Measure, but I think it a little strange that the Under-Secretary should come to the House with a proposal which undoubtedly will cost money and not be able to tell the House what it will cost. We have had a number of examples of this from his Ministry in recent weeks and we had hoped that we would have no more.

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Member says that he does not want to be discourteous or to make party political points and then makes a party political point. If I wanted to make party political points I could do so. In 13 years his Government did nothing about these matters. We are trying to right a wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury said, for many years the woodworkers' union and people in the furniture industry have tried to get this disease presented. By the additional prescribing of this disease we are covering people who have suffered as a result of it pre-1948 and post-1948.

Mr. Tapsell: I fully accept everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, but any Minister who comes to the Dispatch Box with a proposal which will involve Government expenditure ought to be in a position to tell the House what that expenditure will be.

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Gentleman will be given information about the cost. I can tell him categorically that it is not excessive, because the numbers are small. He will surely accept that from me.
It was said that there are other people who could be brought into this. The research showed no evidence of an increased risk of nasal cancer in carpenters, joiners or other woodworkers outside the furniture industry. But further research is under way on the whole question, and should it establish that there is a higher risk in woodworkers outside the industry


the cover given by the Scheme can be extended.
It is with great confidence that I commend the Scheme to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit (Amendment) Scheme 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Pentland: I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.
The Order amends the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme which was introduced in 1948 at the request of the coal mining industry. The Scheme provides supplementary benefit for colliery workers, or their dependants, who receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Acts for colliery accidents or diseases. The scheme is administered by a National Committee comprising of equal numbers of representatives drawn from both sides of the industry. Contributions to this Scheme's fund are made by employers and employees only—there is no charge on the Exchequer or the Industrial Injuries Fund.
The present Order seeks to extend until 2nd December 1969, the arrangements for a standstill on the rates of supplementary injury and disablement benefits made in previous Orders, and it provides that increase in industrial injuries benefits before 2nd December shall not result in higher supplementary payments.
This extension has been asked for by both sides of the National Committee, because I understand the detailed negotiations involving not only the future of this Scheme but other benefit Schemes in the coal mining industry are not yet complete. These negotiations are between the two sides of the industry and are not ones in which my Department plays any part. Both sides have asked for this Order to avoid prejudicing their discussions.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. Tapsell: I listened with considerable sympathy a few minutes ago to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies),

when he said that he had found the explanatory notes to the Scheme and the Order difficult to understand.
If the explanatory notes are difficult to understand, what view is one to take of the draft Statutory Instrument we are now considering? I was able to understand the one we have just discussed, but this one must be incomprehensible to anyone but a Parliamentary draftsman with a positively encyclopaedic knowledge of the subsections of all the social service legislation of recent years. I hope that there is such a person in the hon. Gentleman's Ministry, because I feel that he will agree that at the present time his Ministry is in need of all the help it can get.

Mr. Pentland: Why?

Mr. Tapsell: I shall not stray out of the bounds of order into the broad realms of policy, but in the debate we have just had, the Minister seemed quite brazenly to defend his position—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the Scheme which has just been approved.

Mr. Tapsell: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to reply to the intervention of the Under-Secretary of State.
What this Order appears to do—I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will speedily correct me if I am wrong—is comparatively simple and straightforward. Stripped of the legalistic mumbo-jumbo, it seeks to deny to the pensioners under the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme any increase in their rates of colliery supplement above those which applied before the last up-rating of Industrial Injuries benefit, that is, until December of this year.
Since, as the Parliamentary Secretary reminded us, this is a contributory scheme wholly unsupported by any Parliamentary vote of money, this linking of these benefits to the State scheme seems, on the face of it, a little odd.
The explanatory memorandum gives two explanations for the proposed restriction: first, that the Scheme is administered by
a National Committee on which employers and employees are equally represented


that both sides have asked for this restriction, and, therefore, the House ought to accept it; and second, that
it is essential to the industry to maintain the present standstill whilst the general negotiations aimed at a major re-shaping of this and the industry's other benefit schemes are still proceeding.
The hon. Gentleman also made those two points in his speech.
I have some questions to put on both those points. I have some experience of the management of funds myself. To anyone who has had such experience, the words
administered by a National Committee on which employers and employees are equally represented
strike a chill to the heart. If one wants a really badly managed fund, appoint a committee to run it.
May we, therefore, hear more about this contributory fund? The Explanatory Memorandum says that it is unique. Is it a real fund or a notional one? What is its size? What is its range of investments? How has its growth compared with the performance of the F.T. index over the past three years? Has the National Committee appointed a professional investment adviser to run it? In a word, has it been properly run?
I see the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary smiling at that. But these are highly relevant points for the contributors and pensioners, as I hope to make clear.
That leads me on to the second broader point made in the explanatory memorandum about "a major reshaping" of all the coal industry's other benefit schemes. I know from my own constituency experience in both Nottingham and Lincolnshire that there is growing discontent among the pensioners of some nationalised industries when they compare the benefits which they receive and, in many cases, the performance of the funds on which they have to depend with the benefits and performance they see in the private enterprise sector in such funds as those of I.C.I., Unilever and Imperial Tobacco.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a narrow Order, and it would be out of order to discuss the merits of existing schemes. All we are concerned with tonight is whether the benefits should remain as they are for a further six months.

We cannot debate the merits of the scheme.

Mr. Tapsell: But, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I draw your attention to the final sentence of the explanatory memorandum circulated to all hon. Members? The final argument used in support of the proposed amendment which we are debating is that:
It is essential to the industry to maintain the present standstill whilst the general negotiations aimed at a major re-shaping of this and the industry's other benefit schemes are still proceeding.
Surely I am entitled to discuss the reshaping of this and the industry's other benefit Schemes and relate them to Schemes in other industries?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. It is out of order to discuss the negotiations which are pending at this stage. We are tonight debating only whether the benefit rates should remain as they are for the next six months. We cannot debate the merits of the scheme or the negotiations.

Mr. Tapsell: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I come, then, to my final point. The House is entitled to have from the Parliamentary Secretary a detailed explanation of the Scheme under discussion and of the other Schemes mentioned in the Memorandum. We have not yet had such an explanation from him.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Pentland: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's attitude. In our de-date on the last Scheme, he chastised me on certain aspects of my knowledge of it. Yet, now, speaking for the Opposition, he shows that he has not got a clue as to what this Order is about or its intentions. He then says that my Department needs all the help it can get. He surely needs some help if he is going to deal with these matters from the Opposition Front Bench. He should look at the information he needs as Opposition spokesman if he is to help. He should have all the information necessary at his command before coming here in such a rôle.

Mr. Tapsell: It is not the job of the Opposition spokesman to provide information about proposals being brought forward by the Government. That is the hon. Gentleman's job.

Mr. Pentland: But it is also for the hon. Gentleman to know what he is talking about. He got up at that Dispatch Box and showed by what he said that he has not got a clue about what he is talking about. I shall try to explain the matter to him.
Both the National Insurance Act and the Industrial Injuries Act give the Secretary of State power to approve supplementary Schemes, and this is a supplementary Scheme. It is a Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme. The Colliery Workers' Scheme is the only one for which approval has been given by the Secretary of State. It is administered by a national committee comprising five employers' representatives—four acting for the N.C.B.—and five representatives of the workers in the mining industry. It is contributory on both sides. The ratio of employers' to employees' contributions is about 8·5 to 1 and provides supplementation to injury benefit, disablement benefit and industrial death benefit paid under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
Because the Scheme is made by an Order under the Industrial Injuries Act, it falls to Ministers to negotiate any legislation which is asked for by the National Committee, and that is what we are doing. This Order seeks the extension of a standstill on supplementary rates. The main rates in the original Order were expressed as a proportion of the industrial injuries rates.
Both sides of the National Committee have requested this standstill because the industry is engaged in negotiations involving this Scheme and the industry's other benefit schemes. Proposals have been made for the overhaul of benefit provisions in the industry and this Scheme is only one of the provisions involved. Because the detailed negotiations are taking longer than expected, a further extension of the standstill has been sought by both sides of the industry.

Mr. Tapsell: The hon. Gentleman has merely repeated the content of the explanatory memorandum. He has not amplified it in any respect.

Mr. Pentland: As Mr. Deputy Speaker has already explained, I would be out of order in dealing with the wider context of the Colliery Worker's Supplementary Schemes. All we are asking the House

is to agree to the request of both sides of the industry. We do not want to prejudice the discussions and consultations which are already taking place. They have asked for a standstill by this Order, and that is what we are seeking to give them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — TEACHER TRAINING ALLOWANCE (MR. ALLETSON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The case which I wish to put before the House is a very sad one. It is one which I have previously raised in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I am sure that she will this evening give me a reply which will be satisfactory to my constituent, to the other people involved and to me.
Mr. Eric Alletson of Littleborough, in my constituency, is a technical teacher at Salford Technical College. There are other teachers in a similar position to him, although none have had the misfortune suffered by him.
In 1946 Mr. Alletson took a two-term course at Bolton Technical College. In 1965 he was granted an award of £50 a year by the Department of Education and Science under a Burnham Report of 1963. In 1968 a friend of his, a Mr. J. T. O'Reilly, who had had the same course as my constituent, applied for the same grant of £50 a year. This application was turned down, and Mr. O'Reilly was told that he was not entitled to the grant. "Ah," he then said, "that is ridiculous. My friend, Mr. Alletson, received the £50 a year and did the same course as I did." So the Department looked it up, found that my constituent was not entitled to the grant and withdrew the £50 award. I suppose that a man should not tell his best friend what is going on and who gave him his award, but nevertheless he did. My constituent


has had the £50 award withdrawn, and this will in due course affect his pension.
When I raised this with my hon. Friend some time ago she was her normal sympathetic, courteous self, but she said this was a matter for Burnham and not for her Department. I do not believe that we can leave it at that. Will my hon. Friend consider the reasons given for the withdrawal of the award?
The Department gave the award under the mistaken impression that Mr. Alletson had done a one-year course, whereas he had done only a two-term course. But the circumstances should be remembered. This happened just after the end of the war in 1946, and I would like to take a closer look at what happened about the two term-course.
The first course, course 1, was held at Bolton Technical College between February and July, after which the successful teachers left for teaching jobs. The second course, 2A, was held at Bolton from September, 1946 to Easter, 1947, and the third course, 2B, from early January to July, 1947.
The students of the second course were encouraged to leave at Easter, 1947, to enter the teaching profession a little earlier, but if they wished to do so they were allowed to stay on for the extra term to July, 1947. Some of the weaker students were instructed to stay for the extra term, extra grants being available. This facility was not extended to any of the students on the first or second courses. Thus, some students on the course 2A did a nominal year's training, particularly if they were weak, while those on the courses known as 1 and 2B were restricted to two terms of full-time training. All students were expected to do some guided study over the following twelve months and to attend a two week refresher course held in July, 1948, at Loostock Invalid Children's Home.
After July, 1947, only one course of teachers was taken into the training college annually for a course of one year's duration. It seems to me that these two-term crash courses were held on the instruction of the then Minister to get some technical teachers into the field quickly. Those are the circumstances that surrounded the so-called two-term courses. They were carried out, it seems

to me, in order to help the Ministry in a difficult period when there was a shortage of teachers.
The headmaster of Bolton Technical Teachers Training College in the period in question, 1936–1949, was a Mr. A. J. Jenkinson, M.A., now Principal of the College of Technology, Manchester Road, Bolton. Mr. O'Reilly, the unfortunate cause of my constituent losing his £50, presumably trying to make amends, recently visited Mr. Jenkinson to inquire about the course in 1946. Mr. Jenkinson confirmed what I have just said, that it was not a simple two-term course as it was followed by the 12-months' further external study and two weeks full-time when a certificate was granted. Mr. Jenkinson is prepared to testify to this.
A further anomaly is that there are still some teachers who did this course who are receiving the £50 award. I am told by Mr. Alletson that he knows of others who are still receiving it, although after what happened to him he is not prepared to give the names. He says he would not want to do to them what has been done to him. Neither do I. But I want my constituent to have his £50 per annum that he has had so harshly and unfairly withdrawn, and, equally, I would hope that it would be able to be given to the others who have not yet been able to get it. I hope that my hon. Friend will even enable Mr. O'Reilly to have his £50 award.
I understand that the numbers and cost involved are not very great. My information is that the total number of teachers on all those courses is not more than 240 and possibly only 180, of whom only 60–100 remain in the group affected by the ruling some 21 years later. To pay them all from the time of the inception of the award in 1945 would require a total sum of not more than £21,000 with maximum annual expenditure in the future of about £5,000. .
It is not enough for my hon. Friend to say that it is a matter that can be altered only by the Burnham Committee. She is ultimately responsible, and I would expect her to allow her undoubted sense of justice and fair play to overcome any technical arguments and give back the award to my constituents and the few others who would equally be entitled to it.

11.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): It has been said of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) that if he cannot argue the birds off the trees he will try to charm them off. I am sorry that this particular bird is not able to come off the particular tree on which she is sitting at the moment.
I will explain in some detail the reasons for the difficulty that I find myself in. When my hon. Friend first wrote to me about the case I respected immediately the sense of injustice that he felt so strongly about it, and to some extent I shared that sense of injustice. I will try to set out the difficulty in which I found myself so that he will understand it, and even if he does not share my conclusions perhaps he will sympathise with the situation in which I found myself.
My hon. Friend has put forward the case and in this has shown his concern for his constituent and other constituents in the same position. Perhaps I could begin by saying that the title of the Adjournment debate is a little misleading in that what we are talking about this evening is not grant from the Department of Education and Science, for which I would be responsible, but an addition to salary for certain kinds of training and qualification which is decided on by the Burnham Committee.
It was in 1965 that the Burnham Further Education Committee made its first decision to make incentive payments of £50 per annum as addition to salary of assistant lecturers in establishments of further education. I quote the grounds on which they said they might be paid:
The satisfactory completion of a one-year full-time course or full-time sandwich course on initial training under regulations of the Department of Education and Science at Technical Colleges of Education.
In 1967 the Burnham Further Education Committee again considered the situation and later extended the field of entitlement to which the £50 could be paid. They indicated that an equivalent course under the Training of Teachers Regulations equivalent to a one-year course in a technical teachers training college or full-term sandwich courses could be accepted as a ground on which the £50 addition might be paid.
The concept of equivalence is an important one in respect of teachers' salaries and depends on being able to establish an equivalent course or a course completed for a long period of time which could be shown to be equivalent to a full-time one-year course in the particular case which we are discussing tonight.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the genesis of the scheme was the emergency training scheme for teachers in both schools and further education colleges to which he referred. It is true that the Bolton College of Education in January, 1946, started two courses both of which lasted two terms. The only correction I would make is that the first started in January, 1946, and lasted until July and the second started in February, 1946, and lasted until August. My hon. Friend was also correct that these two courses carried a further period of supervision both followed by a third residential course. Therefore, it might be said that in real effect they were rather more than two terms.
Subsequent to these two courses a number of courses lasted for three terms, especially for those students who had not themselves had exceptional initial qualifications. By 1949 the three-term course had virtually overtaken the two term maximum as a basis of qualification for people moving into further education colleges.
My hon. Friend spoke about the number of people involved. The best information we have in the Department shows us that 320 people in all were involved, and that of those about 94 were restricted to the two term courses. They were neither able to opt for a third term, nor did they subsequently take further training of various sorts. Even of those 94 a number have been removed to other courses where the £50 no longer applies. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right in his estimation of between 50 and 100, though I suspect that the figure is closer to 50 as to those teachers who would fall within the special cases to which the Adjournment debate refers.
I should like to mention two important facts. The first is to reiterate that the Burnham Committee throughout its study of these particular teachers has made it clear that the £50 addition is


payable only for a one year course or for a course equivalent to a one year course.
My hon. Friend logically asked whether this course might not be so considered, but in 1952 the Burnham Further Education Committee considered exactly this case. It reached the conclusion that the particular case with which we are now dealing namely the six months course followed by supervised teaching and by a short residential course was simply not accepted on the ground of equivalence.
Mr. Alletson was employed by the Salford Education Authority at the time about which we are speaking. In 1965 this education authority properly raised the question of whether it might pay the £50 addition to my hon. Friend's constituent. It was told that indeed it might. I make it clear that it was told by my own Department that this was the case. It said that he might be paid on Scale C which, following the 1965 decision of the Burnham Committee, was the scale which carried with it the £50 addition. This implied that the teacher in question had a one-year training course.
I now have to make a confession on behalf of my Department, though I personally was not there at the time. It is that the decision in Mr. Alletson's case was made on two mistaken assumptions. The first was that he had taken a one-year course. The Department simply checked the certificate from the Bolton College without discovering that he was one of the small number who had taken the short course. The second was that the Department of Education and Science was not qualified to lay down the law to the local authority because matters of teachers' salaries are primarily for the local authorities and not for my Department.
However, quite properly, Salford paid Mr. Alletson the £50 addition. It had gone through the correct procedures, and it was right to do as it did. It was only when Mr. O'Reilly, who is a friend of Mr. Alletson, was pursuing the case of many other teachers in the same position and raised the question of whether the £50 addition might not be paid to others who had taken similar courses, that the Department was able to investigate the position and to define it as being a sum which had been incorrectly paid to Mr. Alletson in this case.
The situation is clearly based upon the decision of the Burnham Committee that Mr. Alletson was not properly paid, because his course was not equivalent to a one-year course. This covers the other teachers who took the short course at Bolton and elsewhere in those early years of the Emergency Training Scheme.
I am sorry for the situation in which Mr. Alletson finds himself, and my Department would certainly take a sympathetic view as regards his past additional salary because it is fully recognised that Mr. Alletson is in no way to blame for the situation. Though this is primarily a matter for the local authority—in his case, Salford—were Salford to seek our advice, we would make it as sympathetic as possible in view of the fact that the original mistake was ours and not that of the authority. Nor was it Mr. Alletson's—

Mr. Barnett: Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that if Salford is prepared to pay Mr. Alletson £50 a year because a mistake has been made she will look sympathetically on it?

Mrs. Williams: We are now discussing the retrospective salary that he has been paid for several years. I understand that he might be near the point of retirement. Under the regulations, the Salford Authority would be able to reclaim the payment wrongly made to him. I am talking about this sum of money for which Mr. Alletson has no responsibility but for which my Department bears some responsibility. With regard to the sum from this time forward—and it may cover only a short period—I am afraid that my Department is bound by the position in Burnham.
There are only two suggestions that I can make. The first is that Mr. Alletson should approach his own professional organisation, which has the right to raise the matter on Burnham bearing in mind that Burnham has not considered it since 1952 for this group of teachers and that it is fully represented on the Staff Side of the Burnham Further Education Committee.
Secondly, I would suggest that Mr. Alletson discusses with the authority the position with regard to pension entitlement. We recognise that from his point of view, since he is probably shortly to retire, this is a matter of great concern to him, and it is one on which the


Salford education authority might wish to seek our advice.
Primarily, however, the matter is one for Burnham. I suggest that Mr. Alletson takes it up with his professional association, and I hope that Burnham will then have a chance to consider what is an anomalous situation for a small group of teachers.

Mr. Barnett: Is my hon. Friend prepared to say that she would think it right that Burnham should reconsider it sympathetically in view of the small number

involved and the anomalies which have been created?

Mrs. Williams: The Department of Education and Science has a very small representation on Burnham, amounting to two members out of a great many. I hope that those two members will be aware of the difficulties which have arisen in this case and which might arise in similar cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.